2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIs Sanders the only person running who will try to overturn Citizens United?
HRC would be unlikely to want it overturned until maybe a 2nd term. If she is able to use the Super PACs and Wall St money to suppress Sanders and fight off Trump in the GE, then we should expect that she will want access to that money for her 2nd GE.
No one on the GOP side is saying anything about it, but of course Anderson Cooper is only asking them what kind of music they like, how they relax and other questions he seems to have borrowed from an episode of "The Dating Game."
Bernie Sanders has the consistency on this issue that we can trust. If he makes it to the WH it won't be due to Citizens United but rather despite it and he will be highly motivated to get rid of it before the run for his 2nd term begins.
Yuuuge cross over issue btw:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/02/poll-finds-80-republicans-agree-bernie-sanders-citizens-united.html
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)She can talk a good game, but won't risk doing anything.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)yet her PACs are spending millions campaigning against him. She's using nuclear weapons against an opponent who doesn't have them and has sworn never to acquire them. The General Election is a different matter, and the unilateral disarming argument fits that situation. But right now, her opponent is disarmed, so your argument doesn't fit. Using PAC money against Bernie simply reinforces the notion that her corporate supporters want her to crush Bernie. She takes their money and does their work.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)...according to his supporters here, he's not vigorously campaigning in the Southern Super Tuesday States because they're not "cost effective".
daleanime
(17,796 posts)that he could meet your expectations. I hope you find in your heart to forgive me.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)The problem appears to be his burn rate for Iowa (loss) and New Hampshire (win, but limited delegates).
Beowulf
(761 posts)Superpac money has driven up the cost of campaigning. Hillary can afford to drive Sanders out of the race simply by forcing him to spend money. Her tactics are cynical and only perpetuate the oligarchy's stranglehold on power. She embodies Bernie's point about the corrupting influence of corporate money.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)So Hillary supporters TRUST Hillary? Really...
There is a HUGE difference between talking the talk, and saying what you think people want to hear to get their vote, and walking the walk and living your convictions.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)We know that Bernie will because he has already disavowed Super PACS.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)While she says Sen. Sanders and I both want to get secret, unaccountable money out of politics, she won't release the transcripts of whatever words and phrase she sold to Goldman Sachs. And she goes back to those people more often than most of go to an ATM:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-goes-back-to-well-hits-up-financial-industry-for-fundraisers/
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...then may pay some lip service to rid of it.
It's that pesky lack of principles that is synonymous with the name "Clinton".
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Its not like a lot of people actually believe Clinton
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Sanders is the Only one who Will give We, the People the Only real opportunity, we've had thus far to actually accomplish this.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Hillary is just giving it lip service. She and all her buddies are addicted to money in politics.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)He's certainly the only candidate who actually means it.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)President Obama was against Citizens United but had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close. Hillary Clinton is against Citizens United and has committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this decision 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/
Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.
"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.
If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.
This is the only practical way to undo the damage done by Citizen United in that it will be impossible to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the states to undo this decision. That means that if you want to get rid of Citizens United, then one must support a candidate who can win in 2016 and support the most viable general election candidate.
Sanders has no chance of winning in the general election and so the only way to destroy CU is to vote for Clinton
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)dchill
(38,532 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)groups. I believe anything like this will just be tossed aside, with at the most a little airy oh, the GOP won't let me do that!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Nitram
(22,877 posts)Clinton will try to overturn CU if elected.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Response to Nitram (Reply #15)
onecaliberal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nitram
(22,877 posts)Don't believe everything you read about Clinton on DU.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And then try and tell me that Hillary has benefited or Hillary won't fight the fuckers who went after her so hard.
Are you people kidding me? So many blinded by hate.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)was all about Hillary!
Who are these people?
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I just don't know what to believe anymore.
(If you ever decide to do moderators again, I would volunteer again. 2004 was delightful compared to now.)
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)08/16/15 09:44 AMUPDATED 08/16/15 11:24 AM
By Marge Baker
Few people guessed that Donald Trump would be sitting ahead in the polls at this stage in the presidential election. Fewer, if any, guessed he would be a vocal critic of our big money election system.
At the Republican primary debate earlier this month, moderator Brett Baier asked Trump about something he said in a previous interview: When you give, politicians do whatever the hell you want them to do.
Youd better believe it, Trump interjected with his familiar bravado. The candid description of trading campaign cash for favors that followed revealed everything that is wrong with our government of, by, and for big donors. Thats a broken system, Trump concluded. (And revealingly, none of his opponents on the stage denied it.)
This is not the first time the real estate mogul has called attention to the way our political system rewards big donors while shutting everyday voters out of the process. Trump has been critical of Citizens United, the infamous 2010 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for the modern super PAC elections with which weve become all too accustomed. When several of his opponents flew out to a California resort to hobnob with billionaire donors associated with the Koch brothers, he knocked them as puppets.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)We can't have that now, can we?
Mega-money doesn't just buy elections, it also buys changes to our LAWS. Things that were illegal become legal. It's a predator's paradise.
Our law has been and is being bought by these donors and sold by our representatives. I call that what it is, treason.
I'm glad to see that even Repubs are onto this, and not having it. Hence, their votes for Trump. We have a much better choice, an actually GOOD choice, but will we be smart enough and honest enough and responsible enough to take it?