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
 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
10. The Citizen's United case
Sat Apr 23, 2022, 02:59 PM
Apr 2022

Lol, you left out what the expenditures were for.

Citizen's United was making a movie. Donors were funding the movie. The movie was going to be critical of Hillary Clinton. Regardless of their point of view, what gets dropped in the sleight of hand where you describe the case is that it was about producing a movie.

It only becomes an "election expenditure" when, through the magic of reclassification, the fact that the movie is critical of a political figure makes it classifiable as an in kind contribution.

To go the other way on this case would result in FEC review of a lot of political media.

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united

Most of the time, if you ask people "Hey, what was it the company Citizen's United was actually doing?" most seem to have no idea that they were making a movie.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Opinion: Disney should le...»Reply #10