Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)For those who seem to forget.... [View all]
SCOTUS Citizens United was brought on because of a RW movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton back in 2008.
Hillary: The Movie is a 2008 political documentary about United States Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It was produced by Citizens United. The film was scheduled to be offered as video-on-demand on cable TV right before the Democratic primaries in January 2008, but the federal government blocked it.[1] The blocking of the film's airing was the subject of the court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The documentary interviewed various conservative figures such as Dick Morris and Ann Coulter and reviewed various scandals in which Hillary Clinton allegedly participated, such as the White House travel office controversy, White House FBI files controversy, Whitewater controversy, and cattle future controversy.[2]
In early 2008, the case, known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was brought to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This court sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[3]
The Supreme Court docketed this case on August 18, 2008,[4] and heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009.[5][6][7] A decision was expected sometime in the early summer months of 2009.[8] However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to re-argue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues. The court ruled 5-4 in 2010 that spending limits in the McCain-Feingold act were unconstitutional, allowing essentially unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to political action committees. This was one of the most controversial rulings of the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie
Clinton states this:
"We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for alleven if it takes a constitutional amendment," Clinton said in opening remarks at a roundtable event with Kirkwood students and instructors.
Seems like Bernie may be mimicking her. There is nothing there folks, but a reality that she swims in the waters with the sharks. She is not responsible for Citizens United. She was against it, before it even happened.... But believe it or not, the evil Hillary doesn't make supreme court decisions. You play by the rules that are there at the given time. Bernie is being completely disingenuous... and to try and to make it seem as though she is some fundraising pariah, he links up the RW Clinton Foundation smears to try to get it to stick. The reality is not even close.
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm not going to worry myself with feelings about wrong doings. I deal with the facts. You got some
boston bean
May 2015
#28
"I don't care what mouthpiece it comes from, it's just repeating bullshit."
hootinholler
May 2015
#30
Is there a sliver of difference between Bernie and Hillary regarding Citizens United?
boston bean
May 2015
#35
One person's "unaccountable" is another person's "oops, I didn't realize Algeria was foreign!" n/t
lumberjack_jeff
May 2015
#49
Lobbyists do it all the time. Not formally, of course, but they write many bills.
merrily
May 2015
#18
Apparently, not being able to file a bill yourself = not being able to condemn a SCOTUS decision
merrily
May 2015
#43