To Protect Clinton, Dems Wage War on Own Core Citizens United Argument
The crux of the Citizens United ruling was that a legal ban on independent corporate campaign expenditures constituted a limit on political speech without sufficient justification, and thus violated the First Amendments free speech guarantee. A primary argument of the Obama Justice Department and Democrats generally in order to uphold that campaign finance law was that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that limits are justified even if they infringe free speech. In rejecting that view, this was the key argument of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the five-judge conservative majority (emphasis added):
For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That key argument of the right-wing justices in Citizens United has now become the key argument of the Clinton campaign and its media supporters to justify her personal and political receipt of millions upon millions of dollars in corporate money: Expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption at least when the candidate in question is Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Courts conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power.
snip
Conversely, the once-beloved Citizens United dissent from the Courts liberals, written by Justice Stevens, was emphatic in its key claim: that there are many other forms of corruption brought about by corporate campaign expenditures beyond such quid pro quo i.e., bribery transactions. Their argument was that large amounts of corporate cash are almost inevitably corrupting, and certainly undermine trust in the political system, because of the many different ways (well beyond overt quid pro quos) that corporations convert their expenditures into undue influence and access:
more
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/
The God of neoliberal Reform, hollowed-out be thy name...
blm
(113,063 posts)and should it turn out to be Sanders he wouldn't disarm when facing the GOP nominee either, and no one should WANT him to.
cprise
(8,445 posts)don't be too surprised if an apparently unpopular Republican is suddenly "misunderstood" and rehabilitated by the corporate media. Recall 2000, when Gore was constantly attacked with baseless accusations and ridicule, and given less airtime to boot. That can happen to Hillary, but NOW we are supposed to believe the corporate class doesn't want it to happen....
blm
(113,063 posts)and that is why I voted for him.
Kerry ran his primary race as he ran all his senate campaigns since 1984 - without corporate pac money. Once he was on track to be the nominee and facing the billions from BushInc and corporate media, it was a whole new ballgame.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution and he would never call himself a socialist. He is bound up in the establishment and its phobias.
Sanders has spent his career countering "common sense". The nation agrees with him much more now, and that is creating the conditions for the weakest Republican candidacy in living memory. Still, the Democratic party insists on backing their corrupt DINO.
blm
(113,063 posts)DC establishment ALWAYS hated Kerry and his integrity which set up room for many people to be more easily led by corporate media portrayals than some of you realize. But .Suit yourself.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)This paragraph is absolutely devastating and powerful. I hadn't myself even put that connection together.
cprise
(8,445 posts)You've come a long way baby... but don't inhale too much of the free-dumb, it might make you sick.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Where else do they have to go? Over to the Trump clown show?
Stay vigilant and stand up for the rights of us all.
Greed kills.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Whenever it's pointed out publicly, people should absolutely stand up to it.
WE HAVE THAT.
pnwmom
(108,979 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)
Bradical79 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)probably thinks Citizens United belongs along side Brown v. Board of Educacation and Roe v. Wade.
I, on the the other hand, think such people are hopelessly naive.
If you know any one like that, please send them my way. I've got some beachfront property by the Sea of Tranquility at bargain prices that might be of some interest to him.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, cprise.