Can someone explain how an individual can oppose citizens United, but support Hillary?

[onecaliberal]

If you're against the complete corruption of the process of pay to play politics then you cant possibly support her. I really don't get it. But hey I'm sure they're giving money out of th goodness of their heart. Not trying to buy influence.
I thought we were all against it, and before you say she wants to overturn it, she's the poster child for accepting money from anyone willing to give it.

[dana_b]

1. ...

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Do you think Hillary supported the Citizens United decision?

Before you answer, read up on the case.

[earthside]

29. Ha!

The answer to that: David Brock

[Stallion]

2. Pretty Damn Easy-We Don't want Our Candidate's Hands Tied Behind HER Back

the only realistic way to get rid of Citizen's United is by nominating a more liberal SCOTUS justice-and the best way to do that is to elect Clinton as President. Not only do I NOT object to her financing of her campaign with Super PAC money-I think she would have to be an idiot not to take as much money as she can because she's likely to be hit with about a Billion Dollar Koch funded attack machine in the General Election. You play by the rules currently in effect-not bring a knife to a gun fight

[CalvinballPro]

9. Exactly. Unilaterial disarmament is a losing strategy.

[artislife]

15. The thing is, there will always be another election

that we "have to" win before we can change the rules.

We are republican-lite when we do this.

[PatrickforO]

27. Wonderful point.

We cannot have those things we all want because it 'isn't practical.'

But, hey, let's just vote Dem ONE MORE TIME!

C'mon guys...look, our candidates suck, we know, but they don't suck nearly as much as the Republicans! Let's suck it up and get out there and vote Democratic!

Sadly, lots of us don't seem to want to do that any more.

[gcomeau]

34. Yeah like Bernie's are..... oh wait.

He seems to be able to bring in the money without putting himself up for sale to the highest bidder.

So you have an alternative who BOTH doesn't have their hands tied behind their back AND isn't beholden to Wall St bankrollers. AND is far more progressive on the issues AND polls better in the General Election if we're going to start talking SCOTUS picks.


So how was that excuse you were just reeling off going?

[Stallion]

35. He Has Already Lost this Election

some people just aren't willing to admit it yet.

8 Days and no credible source will be able to deny it

[gcomeau]

36. So... NO excuse then?

Just "well our side will WIN so there... who gives a shit if she should, winning is the only thing that matters"?


In the future if you should ever feel like complaining about the state of corruption in US politics just remember you're part of the problem. That is of course assuming you consider corruption a problem at all, as your response here seem to indicate it isn't a concern for you.

[LonePirate]

3. Well, I support repealing the 2A and I still support Bernie even though he is NRA friendly.

I imagine is it is something like that for HRC supporters and CU.

[onecaliberal]

5. Bernie has a D- rating from the NRA, seriously, spare me.

[CalvinballPro]

10. History doesn't lie. Sanders won his first election through the influence of the NRA.

The NRA bankrolled ads against his opponent, allowing Sanders to win the general election.

And you know what I say to people who point to Bernie's D- rating as if it means something? Real liberals get an F. Sanders helped the NRA achieve a major goal, legal immunity for gun manufacturers.

[BernieforPres2016]

16. Are you going to tell us Hillary is a real liberal?

Come on, try to say it with a straight face.

[artislife]

17. We like links on this site...but surely you know this. nt

[PatrickforO]

32. REAL liberals???

LOL. Surely you jest. You are actually going to try and position Clinton to the LEFT of Sanders?

That's just TOO funny. Have a good day!

[LonePirate]

21. He's to the right of Hillary on guns. It's a fair comparison given the OP.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Probably for the same reason that someone could vote for President Obama

while supporting public financing of elections, even though Obama chose to opt out of public financing.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Can you explain the history of Citisens United?

[all american girl]

7. You know Citizen United was about her...against her? They wanted to run a crappy

TV thing against her in 2008. You know that, right?

[Orsino]

22. That is so far beside the point of the OP.

Citizens United only pretended to be about a movie, or about Hillary Clinton, for just long enough for the usual 5-4 suspects to dismantle campaign finance rules.

Clinton certainly is not the only candidate to have been bought because of it. Just the only remaining Democratic candidate.

[kgnu_fan]

8. You have to turn off your conscience...

[brooklynite]

11. Because Clinton opposes CU...

...and pledged to use her SC picks to overturn CU two weeks before Bernie.

Glad I could help.

[earthside]

31. Hillary gives politicians a bad name.

With her, what she says and what she does are often two very different things.

Citizens United is but one example.

If she got elected (heaven forbid) with the assistance provided by the consequences of Citizens United, there would never be from her any serious attempt to get it overturned.

Too much money, too much power, and too much influence that Hillary loves to be a part of to ever see it reversed.

[Jefferson23]

12. People can rationalize anything and this election they have a viable alternative but still

remain loyal to the WS corporate and war enabling candidate.

Politics is a strange game, but the movement will eventually leave them to choose
a side they most identify with...interesting times.

[farleftlib]

24. +1,000 at least

It's all about being on Team HRC. Her support of the unconscionable doesn't even figure into it.

[Jefferson23]

33. I think right now its hard to know definitively why he does not have the majority support.

So as we speculate, & I do stand by what I said earlier. There is a percentage of Democrats
that are part of the investment class and they benefit from bad trade deals like NAFTA.
They'll benefit from TPP deals too, which she said she will not support IF they do not have
have the protections she believes are necessary...lol. It always comes down to trust too,
and in many cases her record is clear on that score as well.

You have practical beneficiaries stemming from the lack of WS regulations too, and so they're
ok with that vulnerability in place. On edit: the Frank Dodd legislation does not have the
safe guards Clinton claims they do, she was flat out misrepresenting last night and Sanders should
have called her out on it. It does not have what is necessary b/c WS still has its
strength in DC.

There are a percentage of voters who don't know Sanders and she is well known and
in their eyes less risky to vote for her, so it is not so much they prefer her..I think that
is still debatable. Also, there are millions of people not voting and unfortunately this disaffected
group still remains elusive to Sanders. If he had launched a campaign sooner, probably could
have seen much stronger numbers right now..yet he was not suppose to be doing this well
and doing so without corporate money. Kind of blew her bullshit they have to take that money
in order to run an effective campaign. Obama was clearly concerned about her chances, as
he reneged on his promise to stay neutral, twice they propped her up..TWICE. Told me all
I needed to know about their intentions. Warren, the threat, agreed not to run...and even
with that advantage Bernie has given her a chase they did not expect.


Then you have her devotees, I can't speak to why they like her as they do..she is impossible
to appreciate due to her and her husbands legacy of trade deals and enabling WS's collapse.
No one forced them to think the way they do, they've brought a great deal of harm to
Americans and millions abroad. Clinton foreign policies are a nightmare unless you're a
corporate beneficiary..then it makes sense to vote for her.

Millennials, across all demographics.. how they mock millennials..I say keep it up, see where it
leaves you.

[BainsBane]

13. Her platform includes making SCOTUS appointments

amenable to overturning CU, Buckley and related cases. She has said if the courts won't do it, she will work on a constitutional amendment that will.

Sanders has also raised a considerable amount of money from Wall Street over the years and has benefited from huge amounts of super pac and dark money spending in this primary contest as well. She hasn't misrepresented that fact to voters, made claims about not "having super pacs" that play to the public's lack of information on campaign finance law, or pretend to not take money from Wall Street.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881

Nor does she make promises to overturn Citizen United "within my first term" or as a first priority, when that doesn't even fall within the authority of the presidency.

Sanders pretends to be above a system that benefits him tremendously. He's not.

That you are here insisting campaign finance improprieties are about a single candidate shows the way that Sanders has convinced some voters to think about the issue in narrow ways that benefit him rather than addressing the systemic issue.

[mmonk]

18. Not logically

[ibegurpard]

19. You'd have to ask a Hillary supporter

I have no fucking clue what motivates them to support corruption .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Kinda like a drunk ordering another drink while decrying hangovers.

[gollygee]

23. I can see this

For two reasons:

1. When you vote for someone, you're voting for a whole package. No one is going to like everything about any candidate. Or at least that isn't a reasonable expectation. Candidates are human beings with a variety of opinions and you can disagree on one point but overall favor them.

2. There is an argument that you can't get high up enough in the game to change the rules unless you start out by playing the game as it's currently being played. That is, that you have to have the same ways to make money as the people you're running against (and in this case that is the GOP) or you're never going to get elected to be able to do any good at all.

I am voting for Bernie, but this is not a reason. If he decided he wouldn't have an opportunity to make the changes he wants to make unless he took that kind of money, I'd still vote for him.

[senz]

25. CU said MONEY = SPEECH and WEALTH = POLITICAL POWER.

That is the problem with it.

The specific altercation that brought the case to the court is not the point.

Justice Stevens' dissent stated what is wrong with CU:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics

This is what Bernie is fighting against: CU is undemocratic. Hillary has no problem with it because it enhances her political power and that of her friends. She could care less that it's undemocratic.

And you know it.

[gwheezie]

26. Wait a minute!

You think Hillary supported the cu ruling? Are you kidding?

[emulatorloo]

28. Pro-Bernie, Against Citizens United. Also against bringing a butter knife to a gunfight

The playing field right now in 2016 is CU. (sorry to mix metaphors)

I expect both Bernie or HRC will fight like hell to get CU overturned. Despite some of the misinfo in this thread, neither of them support it now or have they ever supported it.

When Bernie wins the nomination I hope he reconsiders and lets a superpac help him fight back against the onslaught of Republican raw sewage that's coming in the general.

[salinsky]

30. Holy crap ...

... the premise of this thread not only ignores the historical context of CU, but completely misrepresents Hillary's position on it.

it's a twofer!