Why would a Democrat vote for H. Clinton and Citizens United?

[rhett o rick]

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision revolved around the documentary “Hillary: The Movie”, which was produced by Citizens United, intended to be a hit piece. When the case went to court the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United and struck down provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law regulating how much corporations can spend on supporting (or Swiftboating) candidates.

Democrats, of course, objected to the ruling because the ruling would break open the flood gates for corporations and billionaires to financially control elections.

But ahh, the sweet irony. The ruling in the case allowed the corporate attack on H. Clinton (via the documentary), but in a not surprising turn of events, it looks like it may be a boon for H. Clinton in 2016 as it is expected that upwards of a billion dollars may be raised by the Clinton campaign because of Citizens United.

So how do Democrats feel about Citizens United today? Of course the Progressive Wing of the Party continues to be against the ruling allowing a continuation of the corruption of our government by Dirty Money.

The Conservative Wing of the Party has a different view of Citizens United. Still claiming to be Democrats, they've decided that it's ok if their candidate accepts the Dirty Money. They fail to see the hypocrisy. They pretend they don't understand the concept of Quid Pro Quo. They claim their candidate will work to fix the problem right after she is through using it for her gain.

How do you feel today about the Citizens United ruling?

17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I still am against CU and the corruption of government by Dirty Money
	16 (94%)
	I am against Dirty Money in politics but willing to look the other way for this campaign.
	0 (0%)
	I have always been supportive of a government controlled by corporation Dirty Money.
	1 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[-none]

1. Dirty Money is not the Democratic Party way.

That's the Republicans you are thinking of.

[rhett o rick]

31. This Class War isn't between Democrats and Republicons, it's a war between progressives and

conservatives. The conservatives serve the billionaires whether they are Democrats or Republicons. They have been successful in raising both corporate profits and the poverty rates.

A vote for Goldman-Sachs is a vote for more poverty.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I've been told it's because people are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

However, I don't think I believe that.

I think it's because most Clinton supporters think she can win while Bernie would get slaughtered in the general election.

You can't appoint people to the Supreme Court if you don't hold the presidency.

A self-described socialist has pretty much no shot at winning the general election in my opinion.

[rhett o rick]

3. So you support Citizens United for H. Clinton only and don't see the hypocrisy?

Sen Sanders has a better chance of winning the general because he will have both the Sanders Supporter plus the Clinton Supporter which is much more than Clinton who will only have the Clinton Supporters plus some Sanders Supporters. I am guessing there is another reason you support Clinton. You feel comfortable with the status quo and a strong authoritarian leader.

Maintaining freedom and liberty is hard work, too hard for some.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Read my post again....

Please read carefully this time and let me know where I said I supported Citizens United.

You appear to be thoroughly confused.

[NCTraveler]

11. You are being kind with your last sentence and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I just think all doubt has been removed at this point.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. What's funny is the comment about wanting a strong authoritarian leader

Sometimes I get the impression that people who post on DU think think they're in the movie "V for Vendetta" fighting against TPTB.

It's hilarious.

[zappaman]

24. "thoroughly confused."

no kidding.

[rhett o rick]

33. Clinton is using Citizens United to gain a financial edge. I assume you support that. But don't

let me put words in your mouth. Tell us how you feel about CU.

[NCTraveler]

63. "Clinton is using Citizens United to gain a financial edge."

Highly inaccurate statement. Not one candidate is using CU. Do you know who CU is and what the case was? Seems your really don't know.

[rhett o rick]

64. I spelled it out in the OP. She is taking advantage of Super PACS.

Super PACs are a direct outgrowth of the Citizens United decision and they are enabling the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

So far you haven't made any arguments. You seem to think you can attack the messenger.

Do you think it's ok to let billionaires buy our government? Dont bother, it was rhetorical. I know the rationale, that it's ok if it's for my side because my side is fighting for goodness. That rationale is shared by all that take advantage of CU.

[NCTraveler]

67. You have no argument.

"my side is fighting for goodness."

That is what you think and I respect you for that. We are talking about rights for minorities, women, income equality, etc.. And you are referencing it like it was a Snickers Bar. Goodness. lol. Hope that goodness gets you somewhere. I'm going with the person willing to fight for me, not feel all warm and mushy with candybar like descriptors.

[rhett o rick]

70. Now you are rationalize what you define as goodness. I have no argument with your definition

of goodness and I will fight for goodness also. But I won't use the fight for goodness as justification to violate Democratic Principles.

Senator Sanders has been fighting for your goodness for decades. He isn't interested in personal fortune nor rationalizing why he should violate Democratic Principles.

It's naive to think that quid pro quo doesn't apply to your candidate. And her affection for Wall Street is obvious.

[upaloopa]

32. There will no be Sanders supporters after the

nomination. Just Clinton supporters and the repub supporters. Everyone else will have taken themselves out of the game.

[rhett o rick]

36. Millions never vote in every election. That's because you offer Corp Thing 1 vs. Corp Thing 2.

Sanders has energized new voters that are sick of the Dirty Money corrupt system you seem to support. If all Clinton supporters support Sanders if he is the nominee, that makes a larger number than Clinton could get. But you don't care. Anything would be better to some than a progressive.

[Gothmog]

4. The only way to change Citizens United is to win in 2016 and appoint SCOTUS justices

President Obama was against Citizens United but had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close. Hillary Clinton is against Citizens United and has committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

This is the only practical way to undo the damage done by Citizen United in that it will be impossible to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the states to undo this decision. That means that if you want to get rid of Citizens United, then one must support a candidate who can win in 2016 and support the most viable general election candidate.

[restorefreedom]

20. scotus matter

that is why we need bernie. he has a much better chance in the ge

[Gothmog]

23. Please provide an explanation or some proof for this claim

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb tried to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac and the only reason that Jeb! is still in the race is the fact that his super pac still has $100 million.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

I would love a good explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election contest. If you truly want to get rid of Citizens United, then you need to support the most viable candidate

[restorefreedom]

27. its kind of everywhere

much recent polling has sanders with a better margin than clinton over the gop. and he has a great number of supporters giving small donations.

there is a reason trump, sanders, and carson have done well. people are tired of bought elections and owned candidates. the money rule days are over.

the kochs power broker days are coming to a rapid and merciful end. even the gop voters aren't taking orders from them anymore..think walker, bush...

[Gothmog]

57. And yet Sanders is declining in the Predictwise rankings

Most people are not seeing this evidence and Predictwise has Sanders at 6% chance of being the Democratic nominee http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination This is a new low for Sanders of predictwise. This evidence is not self evident to most people. If you really believe that Sanders is going to be the nominee, then open an Irish brokerage account and place a bet on Sanders.

[restorefreedom]

66. its a good thing humans don' take advice from predictive markets

many good things in human history were improbable.

as to an irish account, i dont have the money for that, which is why i support sanders. he will provide a better standard of living for us non millionaires

[Gothmog]

88. Actually, people are taking advise and are making/losing money on the predictive markets

The values in the Predictive markets are based on the free market system of people placing odds or assessing the probability that a certain event will occur. There are people in Ireland and other countries who are making investment decisions based on the odds being quoted on the predictive markets which is how the values for the predictive markets are determined. Predictwse aggregates the results of a couple of different market places where investors or humans are making investment decisions based on their belief as to the accuracy of the prices shown on the markets. Most investors are betting that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and Predictwise's assessment that there is a 93% chance that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee is based on the market prices determined on these financial markets.

The free market system can be very accurate as to the valuation of certain factors The old Intrade system was very very accuarte in the prediction of a number of races in large part because the free market system works

[restorefreedom]

89. not a free market person

but i see what you are saying. ironically, you have solidified my support for bernie even more by explaining how people with probably way too much money are literally playing games with other peoples lives.

thanks for reminding me why i am for bernie!

[Gothmog]

91. Vote for the candidate of your choice

I will be supporting the candidate of my choice. I like the free market system and the Predictwise market is an attempt to apply free market system concepts to political races. The investors who make these investments do so based on all relevant market information. The Intrade system was very very accurate in predicting the results of several elections which is why people are looking at Predictwise with respect to the current races.

[restorefreedom]

92. i get it, intellectually speaking it seems to have its own mojo

i just don't like its existence and what it represents (rampant greedy capitalism)

like i said, not a free marketer

happy voting, though!

[tazkcmo]

77. Spoken like a true 1%er.

" If you really believe that Sanders is going to be the nominee, then open an Irish brokerage account and place a bet on Sanders."

[Gothmog]

87. In the real world, one backs up their claims or put their money where their mouth is

If I really believed that Sanders would be the nominee, I would place a bet on that belief. For me, the odds are not attractive since Predictwise has Hillary Clinton at 93% chance of being the nominee which is in the ball park of my best guess of her odds http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

The predictive markets are a way to judge the probability of the success of a candidate and the system works because the free market system is placing a value or market price of the chances that an event or outcome will be realized. I am a believer in the free market system.

[rhett o rick]

41. So you don't approve of CU but it's ok to use it for goodness purposes. The problem with that

rationalization is that there will always be a fight for goodness that can be used to justify bad behavior.

[Gothmog]

53. I do not believe in fighting a battle with a losing hand or both hands tied behing my back

The control of the SCOTUS is a key issue in this race and we cannot afford to let the GOP control the direction of the SCOTUS for the next generation. Running a candidate who is not viable is not a smart move if the only way of getting rid of Citizens United is winning the White House and selecting SCOTUS justices who will vote to over turn Citizens United. Supporting a candidate who can not win the general election is not a good way to fight Citizens United. Again, if sanders wants to be use this as an issue, then he needs to provide some real evidence that Sanders can win in the general election

[Vincardog]

61. Hillary has the negatives to give the GOP the best shot at winning the WH. The polls

show Bernie winning by a greater majority than Hill.

Hillary needs to provide some real evidence that she can win in the general election

[Gothmog]

62. And yet Predictwise has her by far the most likely person to become POTUS

Hillary Clinton is being given a 57% probability of becoming the next POTUS according to Predictwise http://www.attorneyjobsinusa.com/jobdetail/attorney-ii-public-defender-richmond-tx-fort-bend-county-texas-5614a918baf2f Sanders is tied with Jeb! with a 3% chance of becoming next POTUS. Rubio is the strongest GOP caniddate right now with only a 19% chance

[Rose Siding]

90. 2, maybe 3 ads would take BS out in the GE

Mind you, these are how I think the gop would frame their attacks-

1. Using words like radical and extreme, he's a socialist trying to claim credit for every policy achieved by the party he eschewed for his entire career

2. JFK made him physically nauseated -maybe throw in something about his support for Castro

3. Some quotes from his writings about "piggish" women and their "rape fantasiies"

and......curtain.

PACs could do the ads so all the repub campaign money -a fortune- could be used almost entirely for gotv and down ballot races. A bloodbath.

[NCTraveler]

5. I begrudgingly voted option number three.

I would have been more enthusiastic about my vote if it would have included my support for "Turd Way Crony Capitalism fashioned by Neoliberal Fascists sucking of the tit of the Oligarchy."

[ibegurpard]

9. Not surprised

[NCTraveler]

10. I would never want to shock you. I love your heart. nt.

[BainsBane]

22. It's a comment on the absurdity of the poll

That shouldn't have to be explained to you.

[ibegurpard]

28. the absurdity

Is how far right people are willing to go just to support Hillary. In this Bizarro world this poll is not so absurd.

[randys1]

34. Someday someone must explain to me that if Hillary is basically a con, why are the actual

cons spending BILLIONS of dollars to make sure she never sets foot in the WH again?

[BainsBane]

35. They won't concede that

According to some, the entire Benghazi witch hunt was staged to make her look presidential. There is no limit to the absurdity.

In reality, of course the GOP are determined that she not be the nominee because they know she is will be far more difficult to beat than the alternative.

[randys1]

40. I agree that Hillary brings out the haters to vote, Bernie not so much. I believe

the socialist tag is a difficult one, but I dont believe Bernie cant win.

The only concern I have is if Bernie is nominated (and again, I support Bernie), what is he willing to do or say to get the teaparty to vote for him?

We already see an UNMISTAKABLE similarity between the white rightwing teaparty and certain (not all of course) white libertarian Bernie supporters, and this is a fact and very uncomfortable for me.

I believe Bernie Sanders the man is incapable of not supporting minorities, so in the end I am pretty sure he would be OK no matter how radical some who support him clearly are.

[BainsBane]

58. I share that concern

but I am not so confident he would not abandon what he thinks of as "culture wars" to promote what he sees as more important economic goals.

[Starry Messenger]

39. It's all a big ruse, a head fake!

Kabuki, oligarchy, etc. That's what I've been told anyway.

Although anyone who actually is informed about wealthy people knows they hate spending money, so if they are putting all of those resources into winning the Presidency for the GOP, they actually, you know, might actually care about the outcome.

[Romulox]

73. That applies just as strongly as to Wall Street's support of Hillary. nt

[Buzz Clik]

14. +1

LOL!!!

[tammywammy]

26. ....

[Fearless]

6. Seriously NCTraveler??

[NCTraveler]

8. Big Time!!!!!!!! nt.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Me too!

I voted for option three.

I want to crush the little people!

Waaarrrrgaaarble!

[NCTraveler]

15. It has been like the laugh factory around here this morning.

People are literally cheering an almost ten point loss in the polls over the last month plus in NH. I just don't know what to think at this point so I'm just laughing.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Gooble gobble! Gooble gobble! One of us!

[Buzz Clik]

12. Where's the option that allows you to say:

"This poll is slanted and insulting as hell: You are either against CU and HRC, or you are conservative scum."

What's next? Comparing Hillary to Stalin?

[NCTraveler]

17. Last Friday a poster literally said Thatcher is a better feminist role model than Clinton.

I didn't think they would but they even doubled down on it. Stalin is right around the corner. Desperation has set in. Her clothes, weight, and Thatcher is a feminist role model. It's simply unhinged at this point.

[BainsBane]

19. We've already been told voting for Clinton is a vote for fascism.

Seriously. This from someone who claims to care about "policy."

[rhett o rick]

42. Well you are always free to give your views on Citizens United, but since no one in the

Conservative Wing will dare discuss it, I had to guess why you support it.

[Buzz Clik]

46. LOL!

So now I'm a conservative.

Thanks, rhett!

Here's a little sumpin' for you: zzzzzzzzzzzzzT!

[rhett o rick]

50. Well you never want to discuss issues. How about the OP. Do you support CU?

Or think it's ok if your candidate uses it. Situational ethics.

[Buzz Clik]

52. How about you delete the OP?

[BainsBane]

18. Why would someone who purports to be against Citizens United?

Falsely claim a candidate is for it who clearly articulates policies to the contrary on her website?

Why would someone who claims to care about policy go to such lengths to avoid familiarizing themselves with the policy of a leading Democratic candidate and repeatedly misrepresent her positions?

And why would people who want to see the corruption of government through money pretend it hinges on a single supreme court ruling and fail to inform themselves about the myriad of rulings, starting with Buckley, that make the situation possible?

I see only two possible explanations for the repeated misrepresentation of a candidate's position on issues. 1) Policy has little to nothing to do with their opposition to the candidate, because if it did they wouldn't have to continually and willfully misrepresent (the most likely option). 2) But why then create false positions? It's almost as if they want their projections to be true.

[Gothmog]

25. The only effective way to eliminate Citizens United is to win in 2016 and control SCOTUS

Supporting a candidate who can not win in a general election is not a good way to undo the damage of Citizens United which is why I am supporting Hillary Clinton. I have yet to see any evidence or explanation as to how Sanders is viable in the general election

[BainsBane]

38. They assume he is

because they assume their views and their interests are universal, no matter how many times they are told otherwise.

[Gothmog]

55. I like Sanders but I cannot support a candidate who can not win in the general election

[BainsBane]

59. I used to like Sanders

I can't say that anymore.

[randys1]

37. GOP, Karl Rove, Bush/Rubio etal, ALEC and koch bros will do everything in their

power to keep Hillary (or Bernie) out of the WH.

The naive position that there is no difference, or too little difference, between the parties is a deadly one.

Actual lives depend on this election.

Maybe all life.

[mmonk]

21. Because they have been told by their

party it's the way to go.

[upaloopa]

30. Nobody on this board supports the Citizens United decision

The anti Hillary bull shit is reaching new levels.
The bulk of Hillary's financing has come from individuals as has Bernie's
Corporations do not contribute to campaigns.

[rhett o rick]

44. So explain if you don't approve why do you back a candidate that is willing to take advantage

of the ruling for personal gain. The bulk of Clinton's financing has come from a small number of corporations. They get their overpaid execs and their wives to contribute. Not very hard to figure out.

Sanders is supported by working people and not corporate execs.

We want an end to the corrupt system of Dirty Money buying our government. The rationale that it's ok to use Dirty Money if you are on the side of goodness works for all sides that use it. The Republicons use the same rationale.

[Buzz Clik]

47. +1!!!

[Godhumor]

43. I voted option three because your poll is hilarious

Kudos!

[rhett o rick]

45. I notice that not one of you are willing to discuss the merits of CU. Why is that? I think you

are embarrassed to be caught defending a practice that is against Democratic Principles. But I am willing to listen to your justification.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Once again with this rank bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

51. And once again you slide into profanity in place of discussing issues. nm

[Buzz Clik]

56. I deeply apologize for defiling your ears with my foul language.

NOT.

The only obscenity on this thread is the OP.

[rhett o rick]

69. I am only offended by those that choose to disparage others rather than engage in decent dialog.

But I understand it. Don't discuss the issue, attack the messenger.

[Godhumor]

49. Sure bet you're open after posting that OP and that poll n/t

[Nye Bevan]

72. I join with the ACLU in supporting the Citizens United ruling.

Because I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment and do not want to see it restricted, even when someone wants to make a movie or publish a book that says mean things about candidates in elections.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Unilateral disarmament is a sure road to defeat

[rhett o rick]

65. That rationalization has gotten us into lots of trouble. Kill them before they kill you. That's

what Bush said about Iraq and Clinton agreed.

I bet you don't like Gandhi. Not a tough authoritarian.

Winning justifies cheating.

[JoePhilly]

79. Did you just babble something about Bush and Iraq?

And then toss in Gandhi?

What's wrong, Jesus wasn't available??

Oh wait ... your candidate is Jesus, right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. Hillary's campaign is not cheating. They are playing by the rules as they currently exist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. "The means justify the ends" seems to be the popular reply.

Also, "They do it so we have to do it."

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Friedrich Nietzsche

[Tarc]

68. "When did you stop beating your spouse?"

This poll is as loaded as that old rhetorical chestnut.

[rhett o rick]

71. Then all you have to do is refute what the OP says. Do you support CU or just

willing to overlook it for Clinton's case?

[Romulox]

74. Hillary's supporters are defenders of the Status Quo. It's that simple. nt

[TheFarS1de]

75. They have infected every facet of government

Heads or Tails , the wealthy win .

[Romulox]

76. They know *real* change is inevitable. Much of their support is a futile attempt to prevent it. nt

[JoePhilly]

80. BAD Hillary supporters, BAD!

You guys really seem to like making stuff up.

[bigwillq]

78. I am against CU, and Hillary Clinton

and Dirty Money, and the Status Quo.

[JoePhilly]

81. Hillary secretly produced that movie, through the Clinton Foundation ...

... and then brought a case against it to the SCOTUS because she KNEW they would rule against her, thus creating Citizens United!!!!!

Its SOOOOO Obvious!!!!!

[MaggieD]

82. Why the lie about Hillary Clinton on CU

She does not support CU, and you know she doesn't. So why try imply she does?

[Kalidurga]

83. Oh thank goodness I found it

An actual thread that slams Hillary. Well not really. It's a legitimate question. But, gee it makes Hilary's supporters mad. They really could have gone with option 2. Except that would have been being honest.

[Maedhros]

84. Hillary supporters don't really care.

They object to corporate campaign financing only when Republicans are benefiting from it; when Democrats do it, it's OK.

They object to illegal military actions only when Republicans are in the White House; when it's a Democrat, war is OK.

They object to blanket civilian surveillance only when Republicans order it; when a Democrat does it, surveillance is OK.

They are very Nixonian in their views: if Hillary does it, it cannot be wrong a priori.

[rhett o rick]

85. Well, you must give them some credit for flexibility. nm

[Bleacher Creature]

86. Is this snark? Seriously?

This has to be a joke. Hillary Clinton has consistently spoken out against the Citizens United ruling, but somehow she's not being genuine because it involves a case about an attack on her? Or because she understands that the system - UNTIL WE CHANGE IT - is what it is and that she'd be foolish to try and fight with one hand behind behind her back?

What the hell is wrong with people? Believe me, if Sanders wins the nomination I'm pretty sure he'll have a change of heart when it comes to accepting the tacit support of superPACS.