....But if she wins the Presidency, she won't want to give up the SuperPAC money advantage for her re-election, regardless of the words that come out of her mouth.

Right now, with the laws in place today, She cannot tell the Super PACS not to spend on her...and why would she? It's all about reating a equal playing field. The Republicans benefit much more from this decision that any Democrat. Why would you want any Democrat to be placed at a disadvantage right before any election....your snide comment makes absolutly no political sense.

You mention her re-election...how nice of you to concede already for 2016. As for not believe what she can or cannot do with PAC money should Citizens United be overturned during that re-election.....your foresight is quite a load of made up codswallop.

Ooohh yes she can.....

Bernie has disavowed super PACs..

Why would she change a system that worked for her? Raising money with a $2700 limit is hard for a candidate for whom the public has no enthusiasm. Bernie's campaign money will continue to rise while Hillary's rich donors are tapped out. Even if she won the Presidency, do you imagine that after 4 years of Republican pounding, that small donors will be clamoring to donate to her? I think not. If she wins, we will be too focused on our wars in the middle east, anyway. She won't even have to explain why she didn't do anything about it.

she and any other Dem would want to see CU overturned.

And Sanders can't expect what he says in this article.

A nominee for the Supreme Court absolutely cannot say that they've made up their mind, and they will vote to overturn any legislation or previous court decision. Any Justice that does, should and will have to recuse themselves from the case. Ruth Bader Ginsburg began the whole "that question may become before the court, so it would not be prudent for me to opine on the case's legality" answer during her confirmation hearing, and it most certainly still applies in this case.

that they will overturn.

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie would DEFINITELY put judges that would openly acknowledge their disgust for Citizens United.

Hillary has admitted she's a moderate centrist. Bernie is clearly to the far left.

And, he hates everything about Citizens United.

There is zero chance he doesn't find a judge that would be against it.

It's impossible to know what type of judge Hillary would pick.

Not a Sanders issue and he does not get to own it, simply 'cause.

You know that's okay, right?

view. That works well for me. Thank you.

she's going to put pro-reproductive rights and pro-gun control people on SCOTUS those people are also against CU....along with Ginsburg ..who will overturn it...all are fans of Granny D...who walked across country for campaign finance reform (read her book) and I've never seen a single Bernie poster ever mention her....look her up

And, no way either of us can know for sure.

before Sanders spoke up. Sanders does not get to walk into our party and command it be his issue. It isnt. Democrats were forefront and speaking out about it well before Sanders.

A democratic issue.

and buddies....like 5 figures. But I'm sure you knew that. Only Bernie can say that about corporate money.

Yet, he is a man of his word and said he would not do so, even though he caucuses with Democrats. Thus, he was welcomed in. The 3rd Way folk are well aware that they do not represent the Soul of the Democratic Party. There are too many of us sick and tired of being sick and tired. To The Left !

Oh, and who was forefront and speaking out about it that wasn't taking their money in bushels?

He gets some now, but not much. Not because he is opposed to corporate finance, seeing how he well used it to win his congressional races, but because no one thinks it is worth funding him.

et al. Quick. clever switch from SuperPacs to businesses giving to candidates. Guess it needs to be more elaborated upon for clear understanding.

When Donors are the 1st 6-8 donors to someone's campaign, they might have an interest in having their interests forwarded. I don't have five figures to accompany my vote. Just a monthly pledge.

The whole think stinks to high heaven and everyone, including the candidates from both parties, know it.

And, I wouldn't give to someone who doesn't like me either. I guess 2.5 or so million of us think he is worth funding...best we can.

Oh, and I'm not "going on about it". I'm participating in DU, an opinion site, by expressing my opinion.

And likley, being so new here, you missed to articles posted here on DU where Bernie is glad there is a SuperPacs working in his favor. He too cannot tell Super PACS where and how they can spend their money and whom they can support.

do some homework

day to get money to finance his campaign, knowing without money he does not have a chance. So, now his only option is to sue Democrats to fund his campaign. Money from ordinary citizens that he is also asking for their vote.

Meh.... right?

you need to provide proof that "Bernie's lawyers" are stopping PACs and PAC on behalf of Bernie.

You don't just get to make up shit and hope that everyone falls over themselves trying to believe the dribble you just provided.

a link or two would be nice...rather than made up shit.

but I have a brain and don't need to categorize every little smidgeon of information that contributes to my political thoughts. And I'll take your answer like everything else I see and hear, put it in my brain and it will find its place.

Some call it opinion...some call it made up shit. (Got a link for that?)

The only way to get rid of Citizens United is to make sure that a Democrat wins in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

we need at least 2 other SCOTUS to be replaced by a Dem President.

forever.

But I guess that doesn't fit with the narrative.

...I'd say more than troubling, they are shitting their pants over the possibility of her likely nomination and eventual GE win.

coordination with SuperPacs. She had little credibility on this issue.

How dare she! How dare she attempt to play Republicans at their own game and not put her own campaign in jeopardy. How dare she incorporate rule of law to the dislike of cali so much so, that cali announces it's "shady".

The fact that of all Democratic candidates, she has the most to lose by make such a platform announcement, is quite amazing. CU is after her full bore, they are crapping their collective pants. The Republicans are the one who would be hurt by such a reversal even more so than any Democrat...they are shitting their pants too.

Once the playing field is leveled, campaigning and winning will come back to strategies, and ground games. That should make Bernie very happy for his next run at the Whitehouse.

....SuperPacs.

Hillary has spent years amassing corporate campaign dollars from very powerful interests. She has benefited from Citizens United by taking millions from Wall Street, banks, large corporation--and God knows who else.

Real courageous to be against Citizens United--when you've built your campaign on a foundation of corporate money.

You can't be a credible champion against Citizens United when your biggest campaign donors include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank and Time Warner.

I'm surprised that she would even float this talking point.

Does she lack complete self awareness or does she just think we're all stupid?

that puts the rest of your narrative into a major Cog Diss situation. She loves them while they sue her? I'm sure that is the narrative you are trying to push. While this inaccurate narrative may work with some Bernie supporters who are desperate to believe anything anti Hillary and rarely do any of their own homework, this doesn't work for those who understand the reality of the situation.

The lawsuit is a red herring. Yes, Citizens United is suing her for records and emails during her time as SOS.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary receives boatloads of money from corporations that have purchased her.

Nice attempt at a talking point though.

However, it makes absolutely no sense.

If you're going to push talking points, I would try to push something that isn't laughable. Hillary's record is clear. She's bought and paid for. Everyone knows that.

She is savvy enough, and knows how to work the political campaign territory enough, that for her to create a level playing field (financially by overturning CU) for all candidates is NOT a threat.

That fact that you assume Hillary is scared to play by the same ground rules everyone else has to play by is ludicrous. You are attempting to paint Hillary as a political scaredy cat or even a coward with regards to campaign financing. Hillary may be a lot of negative things to a lot of Bernie Supporters, but coward is not of those. She is no fool and realizes the real enemy is the Republicans, there is no good reason not to play by the same financial rules that are employing.

I want a Democratic nominee who does not engage in this shit. PERIOD.

It's not enough to talk, talk, talk about this issue.

Hillary can't take these legalized bribes from corporations and insult our intelligence by suggesting that she's oh-so against corporate campaign money in our political system.

This line of hypocrisy is bizarre.

what you are advocating for and playing games with, is the Whitehouse...and until there is an equal playing field, playing within the law makes sense. You really want a Republican in the White house *that* badly?

The only reason Bernie is pretending to not want PACS (which we know to be untruthful since he does have some PACS http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528 ), is that in the end run, they don't want him.

....that Republicans are playing by. After all, they are the real group that Dems need to defeat for POTUS.

to make an unnecessary point, when we all know the playing field is already stacked and it is going to take a win to fix the situation. While setting oneself up to lose.

See, to me? That is as far as UNpresidential as we can get. Assuring oneself to lose, to make a point, all the while allowing the courts to be set up by Repug that will ensure we never have an opportunity to overturn Citizen United.

Really. Does that make even an iota bit of sense?

That vows to take on dark pools of money in politics while dipping their hands in that same infested pool

which one is it ?

losing is not an option for me. It says something, that you would prefer to lose, than to follow a law implemented that we would need a win, in order to overturn. To me, not only is that terribly hurtful and irresponsible to so many citizens in the U.S., it is fuckin' in our face, short sighted.

I can not cavalierly walk away from the lives of our women and girls.

the candidates are not in control of the super pacs. Also, Hillary wants a Constitutional Amemdment which would prevent the SC court from making this decision again. Having a SC to overturn and this could be overturned again in the future. It has to be stopped before it happens.

How does she plan about getting a Constitutional Amendment

Why have a SC to overturn a ruling and twenty years later it happens again, it will take a constitutional amendment.

when he was elected to congress, he paid them back several times, guess he will have to pay the RW back for the ads.

Opponent Peter Smith when Sanders was elected to the House and we know Sanders voted five times against the Brady Bill.

which is weak, but it is all you have.

Bernie is too honorable, so you are forced to hold him responsible for the actions of others with whom he has no contact whatsoever.


But Hillary gets paid millions directly for speeches to the oligarchs and you claim that it is absurd to imagine that she is beholden to them.

Bush invaded Iraq, not Hillary. Hillary is held responsible for votes taken by Congress when Bill was president. How many times have you read Hillary is responsible for NAFTA, these are just a few examples, it happens all of the time.

I blame her for that. I blame her for not standing up against it.

She never stands up. Even with TPP, she supposedly opposes it now.....but will not show any leadership in trying to stop it.


I want someone who stands up for what they believe....Hillary waits until it is popular with everyone else...then says that she is for it too.

Couple that with a post I just read that the GOP is asking Trump voters to vote for Bernie....the RW sure is trying to help Bernie along the way.

...perhaps he is anticipating something?

I can only tell you was one Bernie supporter mentioned today here on DU. Too bad I don't remember the thread.

The GOP are hot and heavy to have Bernie beat Hillary in the Primaries.

He would be laughed out of the Republican Party, and it would be headline news right now.

you can deny it is you want, but it is what I had read.

After a little non DU search, I did find this little tid bit that seems to go along with the election fraud the Reince Preibus is suggesting:

http://nationalreport.net/gop-leader-republicans-donate-heavily-bernie-sanders/

so it took 8 months for Bernie supporters to get excited?

the GOP is not asking Trump voters to vote for Bernie.

Reading that they are on DU does not make you a liar, but it doesn't make it true either.

so glad that you no longer have to attempt 2800 posts in 30 days. You did it all in time to relax for the holidays!

I also credit the Sanders campaign with helping to publicize this important issue.

I've never been one to say that she's stealing it or anything like that. A good idea is a good idea!

happy new year Maggie