General Discussion

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts) Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:42 AM Jun 2015

An Ironic Twist for HRC or Have You Changed Your Mind About Citizens United

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United, intended to be a hit piece. Basically the SCOTUS ruling struck down provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law regulating how much corporations can spend on supporting (or Swiftboating) candidates.

Good Democrats, of course, objected to the ruling because the ruling would break open the flood gates for corporations 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.

So where do the good Democrats stand today re. The Citizens United ruling? Looks to me like the Progressive Wing of the Party still objects to the ruling, but the Non-progressive Wing seems to have changed their minds and are ready to embrace the ruling.

How do you feel today about the Citizens United ruling?

7 votes, 0 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	I support the SCOTUS ruling because Corporations are people.
	0 (0%)
	I don't support the ruling because the people should be able to regulate spending on the election process.
	7 (100%)
	I support the SCOTUS ruling if it helps my candidate.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

An Ironic Twist for HRC or Have You Changed Your Mind About Citizens United (Original Post) rhett o rick Jun 2015 OP

A no-brainer for me. 99Forever Jun 2015 #1

Looks like it's the same so far on here. Agschmid Jun 2015 #5

Really? Looks like a lot of HRC supporters avoided answering. nm rhett o rick Jun 2015 #6

We can laugh at the irony while seeing the importance of... JaneyVee Jun 2015 #2

Absolutely. nm rhett o rick Jun 2015 #4

I have missed those in our party who support the ruling. NCTraveler Jun 2015 #3

99Forever

(14,524 posts)

1. A no-brainer for me.

Reply to rhett o rick (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:44 AM

Jun 2015

Apparently for neoliberals it isn't so clear.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)

5. Looks like it's the same so far on here.

Reply to 99Forever (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:56 AM

Jun 2015

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

6. Really? Looks like a lot of HRC supporters avoided answering. nm

Reply to Agschmid (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 12:32 PM

Jun 2015

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)

2. We can laugh at the irony while seeing the importance of...

Reply to rhett o rick (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:46 AM

Jun 2015

Overturning it for future elections.

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

4. Absolutely. nm

Reply to JaneyVee (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:53 AM

Jun 2015

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

3. I have missed those in our party who support the ruling.

Reply to rhett o rick (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 11:52 AM

Jun 2015

Completely missed it. I thought our party was pretty united against it. At least in public. Congress is who needs to take action. That is where the ball is at. Campaign finance reform is theirs to do. Citizens United was not some end all be all. How long ago was the Citizens United ruling? Did either Hillary or Sanders have any success at writing new campaign finance law, or at least success making changes? Even the SCOTUS said the goals could be accomplished with legislation written in a different manner.

I am under the impression that both parties are accepting of the Citizens United ruling, with dems acting like they are opposed. They use it for political favor on the stump.

Reply to this discussion