To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

[noretreatnosurrender]

16. Thank you for proving

Mr. Greenwald's points in his piece above.

Your comment where you say there is no "evidence" or we would have heard about it is about quid pro quo (see my original post). This is what Scalia and McConnell argue to maintain the Citizens United decision. If you can't prove quid pro quo then it's not corrupt. You've shown all of us you are on the Scalia/McConnell side of the argument for campaign finance reform. The dissenting opinion says you don't need quid pro quo for it to have a corrupting influence (the Democrats view prior to Hillary's campaign).

Incredibly, Clinton supporters, to defend their candidate, have resorted to denying what was once a core orthodoxy of Democratic politics: that big corporate donations (let alone being personally enriched by huge Wall Street speaking fees in between stints in public office) are corrupting. In doing so, these Democrats — just as they did when they instantly transformed from opponents to supporters of Guantánamo, drones, and spying once Obama stopped denouncing those things and started doing them — have spent the 2016 campaign vehemently renouncing the crux of the argument in favor of campaign finance reform.