Confession: I underestimated the import of Citizens United, never expected a Dem to exploit it.

[CentralCoaster]

I'm thinking that all of us are going to remember where we were when Democracy died.

This moment might be the Democratic Convention to some of us, or the night of the General Election to others.

But unless we see our only progressive candidate overcome the odds, the end of Democracy will already have happened.

On January 21, 2010.

[Trust Buster]

1. The Republicans will spend $2 billion on this cycle. Only a fool would compete like a monk.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. Only a fool would think that spending Citizens United $$ on a Dem primary opponent is justifiable

That's the point where you realize our side has a problem too.

[NurseJackie]

5. It's all part of the same election cycle, Jon.

Your average voter sees no difference. Our primary is also competing for attention with their primary ... why concede and let them control the message?

[JonLeibowitz]

9. Huh. You think that super PAC spending in some way helps us compete in profile?

Do you have a reason to say that? It's a fairly unconvincing claim...

I mean, right off the bat, if we're talking about competing for attention, scheduling more debates (remember, it is confirmed that Clinton initially asked for fewer debates than first scheduled) and at better times would be the natural approach. But no.

[Adrahil]

13. Tou kmow that Bernie actually outpsent Clinton in recent contests, right?

Perhaps you are saying Bernie needed to spend even more?

[JonLeibowitz]

14. You must be lost and responding to the incorrect poster. i was talking about large donor super PAC $

[Recursion]

2. Do you, really? What was the case about, do you know?

The case was about a filmmaker who couldn't advertise a screening for an anti-Hillary documentary he had made because the FEC deemed it "electioneering".

Do you think filmmakers and authors should not be able to advertise their books and movies during an election season?

If you're concerned about super PACs, your issue is with the speechnow.org case, not Citizens United. It amazes me what the public consciousness (wrongly) fixates on sometimes...

[JonLeibowitz]

4. The Citizens United decision was correctly decided, IMO.

I'm not a lawyer, but I listened to oral arguments and found the case not at all unclear.

Of course, the results (yes, SpeechNow.org) were very much against what I would like. I suspect we may need a constitutional amendment on this one, which means it isn't happening.

What really miffs me is that this is all used as some justification for using Super PAC $$ in primary campaigns which is to me unjustifiable.

[Broward]

6. Thirteen years ago I could have never imagined that the only general election candidate

that voted for the Iraq War would be a Dem. Too many voters lack morals and judgment.

[uponit7771]

7. Sanders outspends Clinton 2 to 1 in most of those states, he's making the case for the USSC decision

... seeing he's spending all the money and still losing due to piss poor messaging.

#SandersSoSanctified

[SaschaHM]

8. Sssh.. How dare you challenge the narrative!

[CentralCoaster]

10. Name recognition and inner circle friendships and dark money put Clinton well ahead.

Bernie came from out of nowhere.

Quite a feat.

[uponit7771]

11. He came out of nowhere to lose with a message that reached mostly white men and minimized

... the need for everyone else.

In 14 he minimized social issues... and it came out in his campaign

[IamMab]

12. Bernie Sanders, the "money buys elections" candidate, outspent his opponent and still lost. DERP!

If you think that losing a democratic process means that democracy is "dead," then you simply don't understand democracy, at all.

No participation trophies here, Sparky. Ask your parents, they'll tell you.