Voting for Bernie Sanders will defeat Citzen's United

[SamKnause]

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)

and restore America's faith in Elections.

This is an excellent short article about the elections !!!!!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/voting-for-bernie-sanders-defeat-citizens-united_b_7782842.html

I know some people do not like clicking on the Huffington Post, but it is a great read.

[artislife]

1. Choice quotes from article

The phrase "too far left" is used not only by Fox News to frighten voters, but also by Democrats convinced that any candidate willing to break up the banks is doomed in a general election. Like Senator McCaskill warns, America just isn't ready for a "Democratic-Socialist," even if the six largest American banks have assets equaling 60% of U.S. GDP. We've been taught to fear the influence of large campaign donations, and while standing up to the "billionaire class" is nice, pragmatism is paramount since corporations now have the same freedom of speech in elections as the average American.





Regardless of the fact that even Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are talking about wealth inequality, certain Democrats believe that only the most centrist and carefully vetted messages will gain the attention of yesterday's middle of the road swing voter. The fear that an honest and genuine progressive candidate might ruffle the feathers of Wall Street lures many Democrats towards vapid centrism, or even blind acceptance of scandal and neoconservative foreign policy. The problem however, is that swing states already don't trust this centrist candidate, even with hundreds of millions in overflowing campaign coffers.


According to The Hill, the next presidential election will cost over $5 billion, with both parties battling one another to please the highest bidder. One Clinton campaign official is quoted in CNN as explaining that since the Koch brothers will donate $1 billion to their GOP nominee, "There is too much at stake for our future for Democrats to unilaterally disarm." Therefore, even though Hillary Clinton lost $229.4 million in campaign money against Obama in 2008 (leaving the race with $22.5 million in debt), the Clinton campaign is still expected to raise $2.5 billion in 2016 from super PACs and wealthy donors.



The choice is clear in 2016. Americans can vote for someone with a "Top 5" list for secrecy, or a candidate whose grass roots website is gaining attention throughout the country. Future generations will look back at this election and either say that we defeated Citizens United by electing a man serious about defeating the Court's decision, or succumbed to the grip of corporations by voting against the interests of our democracy. When POLITICO runs a piece titled, "Donald Trump Has Spent Years Courting Hillary and Other Dems", America's democracy is in dire need of an honest man.

[SamKnause]

2. Thank you.

[artislife]

3. It was a good link! nt

[LWolf]

4. I have no problem with HuffPo.

And it's a great read.

The title alone is worth posting:


Voting for Bernie Sanders Will Defeat Citizens United and Restore America's Faith in Elections

I liked this, too:

Regardless of the fact that even Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are talking about wealth inequality, certain Democrats believe that only the most centrist and carefully vetted messages will gain the attention of yesterday's middle of the road swing voter. The fear that an honest and genuine progressive candidate might ruffle the feathers of Wall Street lures many Democrats towards vapid centrism, or even blind acceptance of scandal and neoconservative foreign policy. The problem however, is that swing states already don't trust this centrist candidate, even with hundreds of millions in overflowing campaign coffers.

For many, preventing another Bush administration means setting aside progressive ideals in favor of Citizens United cash and cold pragmatism. If it means winning, then it's only rational to vote for a candidate who was against gay marriage until 2013, against the decriminalization of marijuana, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, supported Keystone XL, voted for the Iraq War, and is linked to neoconservatives. True, Vox states this candidate might "pull Democrats and the country in a hawkish direction," but $2.5 billion is the best chance at preventing another Bush administration. Also, the fact that Vice News, the Associated Press, and other organizations are suing the State Department for access to emails doesn't concern some voters.

This might be the mindset of certain people, but it's definitely not the viewpoint of world renowned rap artist Killer Mike, Ed Shultz of MSNBC, Bill Press, Progressive Democrats of America, and millions of other voters who still believe that values and principles overshadow enormous campaign contributions. A political awareness is forming, as illustrated in Iowa and New Hampshire, despite the fact that the same statisticians who never predicted this phenomenon are now saying it will be short-lived.

[SamKnause]

5. Thank you.

[LWolf]

6. You're welcome.

It's a good article. It would get more attention if you put the artcle title in the title of your OP.

[SamKnause]

7. Thanks for the suggestion.