Can this be really true? "Democrats embrace Citizens United in Defense of Clinton." See below.

[Cal33]

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/democrats-embrace-citizens-united-in-defense-of-clinton

[Jackpine Radical]

1. A little more from your link--

Less than three weeks into her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a stunning feat: She appears to have unified large swaths of the Democratic Party and its activist base to support the core tenets of the Citizens United decision — the one that effectively allowed unlimited money into politics.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling declared that, unless there is an explicit quid pro quo, the fact that major campaign donors "may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt." The theory is that as long as a donor and a politician do not agree to an overt bribe, everything is A-OK.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton's State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton's campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.

In campaign statements and talking points — and in activists' tweets and Facebook comments — the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren't even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, "there's nothing new" here.

To advocates for limiting the influence of money in politics, this pushback from Democrats is particularly rich (pun intended) coming from a party that spent a decade asserting that Republicans raking in cash from Big Oil and pushing oil-friendly policies was rank corruption. The Democratic defense of their presumptive presidential nominee registers as especially disturbing to campaign finance reform advocates considering the mighty efficiency of the Clinton fundraising machine.

[samsingh]

2. i believe that citizen's united was the SCOTUS's attempt

to get Obama out of office anyway they could. Just like the repug redistricting was aimed at beating Obama. This is similar to the SCOTUS decisions in the 2000 election where narrow interpretations were used to stop vote counting in Florida so that bush could steal his way into office.

the joke now is that the Clintons can generate more money than anyone thought possible, and with the citizen's united bullshit interpretation, a lot of black money becomes acceptable. the redistricting was really aimed at defeating a black President. Neither attempt to undermine democracy worked.

And now citizen's united will empower out side more than the idiot repugs. it is a stupid law that will hopefully get fixed when some of the stupid members of scotus are no longer there.

[savalez]

14. +1

[BainsBane]

3. No

The fact is the rules as they exist now govern current political races. Clinton herself has said we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the SCOTUS decisions. I favor one requiring public financing.

It's like saying you accept the current tax structure when you pay your yearly taxes. You abide by the law as it stands, but that doesn't mean you don't work to change it.

[Hekate]

15. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. Big difference in "embracing", and playing the hand you've been dealt by SCOTUS. nt

[Arkana]

9. It's the Bruno Gianelli rule:

Once you're elected, change what you want--but in the process, run in the same election as everyone else, hmm?

[leftofcool]

5. Um, no! You use what is law until you can change it.

[JoePhilly]

6. Hate the game, not the player.

Hillary did not make the rules. So at this point in time, she has to use those rules, and play to win.

Purity is for those sitting behind a keyboard complaining.

[Cal33]

10. It seems that under these same rules, Hillary has found a way to not only benefit from them, but

also to give the Supreme Court a dose of its own medicine at the same time.

Could this lead to an open war between the Rep. and Dem. corporation execs. -- Who
will be able to donate more?

[JoePhilly]

11. Plus, the Republican corporate donors will be spreading their primary money ...

... far more widely.

The fact that they don't have any real top names could hurt them and help us.

But clearly there is no reason for any Democrat to unilaterally disarm themselves.

[Cal33]

12. There is a group of wealthy Democrats called "The Patriotic Millionaires" who want to pay higher

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

taxes and are known for their philanthropy. They might not own as much as the
biggest Republican business corporations, but I feel sure they are more generous
by nature, and they'd give a higher percentage of what they have. Some time ago
a group of wealthy people (I don't know if it is the same group or a different one)
urged Elizabeth Warren to run. They wanted to back her.

The GOP has a miserable group of people running for president, indeed. I can't
imagine anyone of lower moral fiber than the likes of Scott Walker. He shouldn't
even be running for dog-catcher! He is sheer dirt.tax

[AtomicKitten]

7. Food for thought for all Democrats.

<<excerpt>>

* While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton was paid $2.5 million by 13 corporations that lobbied the State Department. Ten of the firms paid him in the same three-month reporting period that they were lobbying Hillary Clinton's agency. Several of them received State Department contracts, worth a total of almost $40 million.

* Hillary Clinton switched her position to back a controversial U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement as millions of dollars flowed into her foundation from an oil company operating in Colombia, and from that company's founder. Amid reports of violence against Colombian unionists, she also certified Colombia's human rights record, thereby releasing U.S. aid to the Colombian military.

* Hillary Clinton's State Department delivered contracts and a prestigious human rights award to a technology firm that donated to the Clinton Foundation — despite allegations from human rights groups that the firm sold technology to the Chinese government that helped the regime commit human rights violations.

The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy, as long as there wasn't, say, an email detailing an explicit cash-for-policy trade. The insinuation also seems to be that journalists shouldn't even be reporting on any of it, if there is no such email.

My only counterpoint: When Mr. Sirota refers to the Democratic Party above, I believe he means specifically the Clinton Party, an undeclared but very distinct and separate wing of the party that in a haze of cognitive dissonance are fine with pretty much anything and everything the Clintons do.

[geek tragedy]

8. No, it's a brazen lie from the usual Naderite assholes

Citizens United is the law of the land. It defines the rules governing elections.

One does not need to LIKE or SUPPORT the rules to recognize that they are indeed the rules.

It's also true that one can simultaneously (a) play to win under the rules and (b) seek to change the rules.

In fact, under our political system, one does not change the rules unless one wins under the rules.

Citizens United is not going to go away because progressives click their heels together three times and say "there's no place for money in politics. there's no place for money in politics. there's no place for money in politics."

[MaggieD]

13. It's Truth Out - of course...

... It isn't true.