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

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

rachacha

(173 posts)
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:31 AM Apr 2016

Would the Hillary Victory Fund exist without Citizens United? [View all]

Does Hillary believe that the method that she's been using to buy the election should be allowed for others in the future?

It's hard to tell, because her actions seem to say she believes in big donors having a disproportionate say in our political process, but she has very consistently spoke out against Citizens United.

Edit: Looks like McCucheon v. FEC is what enabled the Hillary Victory Fund.

From Wikipedia:

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wished to go further and abolish all campaign contribution limits. He wrote: "limiting the amount of money a person may give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication." He rejected the rationale of Buckley v. Valeo that &quot a) contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support", since "this Court has never required a speaker to explain the reasons for his position in order to obtain full First Amendment protection".

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."(24)


So, while it's a separate ruling that enables the Hillary Victory Fund, the more progressive supreme court justices came out against it.

Interesting.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Would the Hillary Victory...»Reply #0