General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Sirota: In Defense of Hillary Clinton, Democrats Embrace Citizens United Decision
from truthdig:
In Defense of Hillary Clinton, Democrats Embrace Citizens United Decision
Posted on May 1, 2015
By David Sirota
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 decisionthe 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 Clintons State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clintons campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.
In campaign statements and talking pointsand in activists tweets and Facebook commentsthe 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 arent even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, theres nothing new here. ...................(more)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/democrats_embrace_citizens_united_in_defense_of_clinton_20150501
fredamae
(4,458 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And I don't think it can be made more powerfully than that.
The monied corruption of our system must end. Enough is enough.
cali
(114,904 posts)And this has nothing to do with illegalities. It has to do with the role big money plays in politics.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Is Carly Fiorina scrutinized because of her leadership relationship with Good360?
Are HomeDepot's donations to that nonprofit reflective of an expectation of quid pro quo from candidate Fiorina?
The reason for all the scrutiny of the Clinton foundation is its name.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)It seems the Clinton Foundation can be managed better... But to call it a PAC is fucking moronic; it exists to help folks in distress, not to influence the political debate, one way or another.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Is it possible that donors often do so with the hope that they'll be thought of favorably? Probably, and I suspect the same could be said about many charities.
Is it possible that people align themselves in a high profile way with charities to polish their resumes? Also probably true.
I don't see the Clinton foundation as in any way unique in those regards.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I am sure some folks are giving to Bill to influence Hill but I have not seen a shred of influence where that has occurred. And if Bill can take from the rich to give to the poor which is what his foundation does I don't have a problem with it...
It reminds me of someone who plies another person with gifts in the expectation of receiving sexual favors. It doesn't always work.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)If there were quo it should be presented to Attorney General Lynch for prosecution but since no quo exists it won't. The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work for folks in distress...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I guess matching them is fine, if all you want to do is change the logo.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)out of a hole.
Yes, it takes money to run a campaign but there is a point of diminishing returns.
A big money candidate will never spend political capital to get money out of politics.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Or killing for peace?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)money and then we lose. This is a three way game - Democratic voters vs. Rs and then both the parties vs big money. That is why we should not play the game.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I hear you. I can't get over how so many choose to studiously ignore that getting another corporatist president is not worth falling on a grenade for the party, if the party is as bad economically as the GOP....which it will have to be in order to curry corporate funding.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)Clinton has said (in response to my personal question) that she would appoint Justices to overturn CU and/or support a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, CU is the law of the land, and any candidate who doesn't play by the rules is a fool.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)This is why I think most Democrats are just giving lip service to getting rid of Citizens United - they love that money, too.
Most of the emails I get from Dems (I unsubscribe from most) are, as I predicted, asking me to help match the Kochs. You think most Dems want to say good-bye to all of that lovely moolah? Bwahahaha!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Rhetoric of corruption.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)from corporations or high dollar donors. Put your money where your mouth is. Bernie has done that, right?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yes, Hillary and Bernie are *exactly* the same! And Hillary is going to "topple" the One Percent!
You guys are adorable. Really.
[font size=3]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026225013
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)comes from individuals. 'nuff said.
BTW do you really think the people on Bernie's list will remain the same once he runs for national office?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)was a better candidate. No need for purity test straw man.
Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)You think they enjoy raising all that money? Try it some time. It is not fun.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Democrats would be fools not to take big money. They are unelectable if they don't. Oligarchy and the impossibility of republican governance is fine so long as our team wins, I suppose.
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)likely take a constitutional amendment, which Hillary supports. You play the hand you're dealt, but go ahead encourage your progressive candidates to take the high road, take a moral stand and not accept contributions that way and see how far you get.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)who takes the moral high road? That's a novel idea. Who would you suggest?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yep, that's our Third Way!
And, as we learned above, Hillary's massive contributions from Wall Street *actually* reflect a bond with struggling members of the 99 percent, most of whom just coincidentally happen to work at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs! It's those creepy connections with UNIONS that Bernie has, that we should be worried about...
War is Peace, Hillary has always been at war with Eastasia....er.... the TPP she helped author, and there is nothing in the candidates' extensive records to suggest that they aren't EXACTLY THE SAME when it comes to passion for "toppling" Wall Street!
I swear, Orwell couldn't do a better job with chutzpah.
This is how stupid we are assumed to be by the talking point dispensers. It's delicious to watch, this meltdown of the Third Way, now that we finally have an honest candidate in the race.
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Ways Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)...we should stand on your principle and not raise the money needed to compete with them.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)When you realize you're playing at a crooked table, sometimes the only power you have is not to play.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)brooklynite
(93,878 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)And you make sure the American people know you don't.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)BTW - how do you "let people know"?
The advertising you can't afford?
The news media that you don't trust?
The MSNBC shows that 90% of voters never watch?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)The fact a candidate is not viable without the money to do the things you mention means that you and I lose regardless of who wins. That will not change until pay to play politics is either banned or severely reigned in. Pigs will fly before either party willing does that.
brooklynite
(93,878 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)That's the problem. I suppose you can make the case that a Wall Street democrat is better than a Wall Street republican, but the inevitable drift of the democrats will still be rightward, and since the republicans will always be right of the democrats, the claim can always be made that a democrat will always be better, but that is not comforting.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I thought much the same.
It's either chutzpah by the truckload, or the article was from 'The Onion'.
The DLC / beltway truly is the sterile bubble.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Love it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It leads to defeat and slavery.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Refusal to aid and abet political corruption by resisting it is not unilateral disarmament. It is the the essential precursor of rebellion.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)rather than Tweedledee is a recipe for victory? All the moderates have been driven out of the Republican Party and the progressives are being sidelined in the Democratic Party. That leaves a rightist party competing for the same pot of of oligarch's gold as a fascist party. A vote for the rightists may slow the day of reckoning for our form of government, but it will not reverse course.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not perfect, but it is not a rightwing party. It's silly to suggest that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)She is right on issues, that won't get Bernie or Her elected.
Hillary is prepared to do whatever takes to get elected, all
the great speeches Bernie makes won't get him elected.
It takes lots and lots money: it is mothers milk to politicians,
that is how Obama got elected.
FDR said: to win the Presidency one had to be good poker player,
Hillary has play the game and won, and then has dealt great
cards to the American people. (Like FDR) The GOP don't
want the American people at the table with cards.
Another way of saying it: No one wins the Presidency beinga girl or
boy scout. The candidates to have run for office in the real world, which
is more difficult than being right on the issues.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Good for 'Democratic Party Inc" boffins; but bad for the 99 percent.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bush and GOP policy's brought out the 99%
The GOP call Hillary the most liberal Senator in Congress!
i
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)anybody who doesn't want to bomb Iran is a liberal. I don't think Hillary as a problem with bombing anyone.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)There was only one large military conflict with Clinton's, it
was in Kosvo. Not a single American solders died, conflict
ended with the people naming streets after Bill, and to this day
Clinton's are hero's in that part of world.
Clinton's kept American out war for the most part, they raised
taxes on rich, built up middle class strength SS.
Hillary is responsible: but not a war hawk
It was Bush's decision to crash the economy and take American into war and
large debt.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)George Bush a green light to invade Iraq. She did that when anybody who took the time to learn anything about what was happening knew it was a fraud. I will vote for no politician who supported that war.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary didn't make the decision to go to war:
She made the best decision based on facts she new at
the time! Cynically is your word!
She was one of the last people to vote, because she
was reviewing all the intelligent reports that pointed
WMD's. There is no way she would have voted with Bush,
if she new what was happening was fraud. Hillary supported
her country in what she thought was the right thing!
Her government lied to her and all of us about Cheney' war for
greed. Obama, if he was in the Senate and had vote he would vote yes too!
GO, Hillary!!!!
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)http://web.archive.org/web/20020205133621/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm
And Clinton's "Defense" secretary Cohen - a Republican- lied to the American People.
John Pilger: Don't forget Yugoslavia
The secrets of the crushing of Yugoslavia are emerging, telling us more about how the modern world is policed. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, this year published her memoir The Hunt: Me and War Criminals. Largely ignored in Britain, the book reveals unpalatable truths about the west's intervention in Kosovo, which has echoes in the Caucasus...
http://johnpilger.com/articles/don-t-forget-yugoslavia
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Dem's only lose if the GOP takes the white house, you
cannot get a set at the table of choices in this country,
without winning an election.
And even then: thats just a start, you have to find the votes
to get anything done.
The people sour politics when they don't get their way!
But, if Dem beat the GOP suddenly the politics will seem great!!
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)"Not as bad as the republicans" is dead in the water as a meme. Flushed out. Non-starter. Been there done that. No non-economic good is worth it if another corporatist is in the white house.
Sanders is the real deal. HRC could be if she had the balls right now to raise holy hell against the corporate oligarchy and fight for working class issues. As of yet, the latter seems to be doing the triangulation thing and hoping that social issues that carry the day, and maybe some lip service to the working class.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)in his own mind.
Zero evidence of this actually being the case.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)such as elective war, blanket surveillance, prosecution of whistleblowers, and execution of enemies of the state without due process. As long as a Democrat in the White House is doing these things, it's not a problem. These things are only presented as "problems" when they can be used as a bludgeon against Republicans.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Policy_influence
Keith Olbermann talked about it -even called for a boycott- then got fired
Obama has made a bunch of republican policies acceptable to Democrats. It's beyond disgusting.
pa28
(6,145 posts)He's just been nailing Christie and Rahm and their pay-to play pension schemes. Now he's taking a well deserved look at Hillary.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)It makes no sense. It contains no facts. It is left wing lies and conspiracy theory, conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)too vocal the "bad TPP" will get in
that of course is a deliberate distortion of the political process, and ignores both history and current facts (like that the TPP would pass entirely with Obama and GOP Congresscritters)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Not hearing that bullshit from rank-and-file Democrats where I am.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Thanks.