Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Wants A Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United

Democrats have been hysterical over the Citizens United ruling ever since it was announced. They’ve railed against it, trying to whip up the masses…well, the masses of the Democratic Party base, because, otherwise, no one really cares. In all fairness, they have gotten a few polls to go their way, but, really, the same Democrats have taken advantage of the very thing they rail about. Shocking, eh, that Democrats would be hypocrites, right?

(CBS News) Doubling down on a key campaign pledge to take big money out of politics, Hillary Clinton announced Saturday that she intends to back a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that made way for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

In a video address Saturday to the progressive Netroots Nation conference in St. Louis, Clinton promised that she would introduce the amendment within “the first 30 days” in the White House.

The amendment would, she said, “give the American people — all of us — the chance to reclaim our democracy.” The proposed change is expected to protect against the outsized influence of the billionaire class in U.S. political system.

She might actually recommend it, but, would she fight for it, or just set it aside after an announcement, mentioning it now and then much like Obama has done with Guantanamo Bay detention facility? She goes on to yammer

For Clinton’s own campaign finance reform plan, a campaign official said she intends to sign an executive order requiring all federal government contractors to publicly declare all political spending, in addition to pushing Congress for more effective legislation on donation disclosures.

Intending to close any loopholes allowing for dark money, Clinton would urge more transparency for outside groups and any “significant” donors sponsoring their cause.

The former secretary of state would also promote a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would require any publicly traded company to disclose their political spending to shareholders, according to the campaign.

So, executive action to limit the 1st Amendment rights of citizens and groups, as upheld by the Supreme Court. CBS finally gets to something important at the end

Clinton herself has benefited from these super PACs, which allow for unlimited donations from wealthy Americans. At the start of June, the pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA, had $52 million cash on hand. And the group told CBS News last month that it has already reserved more than $150 million in advertising for a general election campaign against Trump.

That’s putting it kindly

(Center for Public Integrity) Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money” that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.

CPP is very much a Progressive outlet, receiving money from groups such as the Open Society Foundation, which is a George Soros group. They have lots and lots of Leftists on their board. Even the NY Times and LA Times call them “liberal.” Yet, here they are pointing out that Hillary is a big beneficiary of Citizens United. Nor is that the first time.

What she’s essentially doing is advocating the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment. You may not like CU, but, it is based on the notion of allowing citizens and their groups to participate in the political process, engaging in Free Speech, protesting peaceably, and petitioning for redress of grievance. CU was a 1st Amendment case. Why do Democrats like Hillary want to restrict the 1st Amendment? Of course, they mean for Other People, not for themselves and their groups.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

34 Responses to “Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Wants A Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United”

  1. xtron says:

    fine…provided the term “and/or union” is included after each and every “publicly traded company”. this would be a poison pill the dems would never swallow…they need their money laundering unions to survive.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Heaven forbid We The People deciding a major issue rather than the Supreme Court.

    We The People already know that our elected officials are incapable of legislating in the public interest, hence the Supremes having to step in, hence the Amendment process made necessary.

    That said, the new Supreme Court will rule on a case gutting Citizens United before an Amendment wends its way through the states.

  3. Jeffery says:

    80 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats oppose the Citizens United decision.

    Labor unions, corporations and billionaires can now donate unlimited amounts to Super Pacs (but federal law requires these contributions to be disclosed). “Dark money” non-profits can also receive unlimited donations but DO NOT have to disclose donations, but by statute, the non-profits must spend more on social welfare advocacy than campaigning (yeah, right, LOL). The Super Pacs and Non-profits can then use the money to run negative ads against candidates, but not in coordination with campaigns (yeah, right, LOL).

    The result is that the tone of campaigns is set by labor unions, corporations and billionaires. In all fairness, the decision also allows a working schlemiel, e.g., a roofer, a plumber or a school teacher, to donate a billion dollars if he so chooses. So in that sense we all have equal opportunity to impact an election.

    It’s just another example of the political donor class and their conservative minions solidifying the wealthy’s grip on the commonweal. There’s no better way to support the plutocracy.

    And really, the Republicans and their wealthy benefactors enact a policy and Teach expects the Democrats to voluntarily disarm? LOL. Nice try, goofy.

    This is a policy that the Republicans and their wealthy masters will fight to keep from voters.

  4. Aaaaand Jeff utterly ignores the hypocrisy from Hillary and Dems. Why are you not calling Hillary out on this, Jeff?

    • John says:

      Teach if one party accepts corporate funding the other MUST in order to be competitive
      Why aren’t you calling out the GOP on this also ?
      Hopefully CU will be limited by the new Clinton SCOTUS

  5. John says:

    Well of course just like Guantanamo that type of action can not be done unilaterally by the Executivd Branch
    The Congress needs to write the law
    Right now the GOP controls Congress they could pass a bill if they wanted
    The GOP Majority Congress has an approval poll rating in the mid teens 1/3 that of Obama
    Teach really do you think Wall Street should control the government ?
    Aren’t you always complaining about Clinton’s ties to big money ?
    CPP is trying to change the law, after which their own activities will be subject to that new law
    The GOP gets a much higher percentage of its funding from big donors
    Big donors contribute most to the party they think can help them the most
    2016 and beyond are looking good for the Dems
    I woukd like to see the Dems (as well as the GOP) have to rely less on the ultra rich to find them

  6. Jeffery says:

    Teach typed:

    Why are you not calling Hillary out on this

    As I explained:

    And really, the Republicans and their wealthy benefactors enact a policy and Teach expects the Democrats to voluntarily disarm? LOL. Nice try, goofy.

    Conservatives to a man want to cut federal spending, but insist in keeping their Social Security and Medicare. Is that hypocrisy or just playing by the rules as they are?

    You can’t be as dumb as you type.

  7. david7134 says:

    If one individual in the US would know about crooked politics, it is Crooked Hillary. She is throwing up this screen to make it appear she is honest. She doesn’t even know the word.

    I wonder if our liberals are going to be more inclined to Trump as he does not accept these types of donations and seems to get by with less money.

  8. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    By law, this money cannot go to the campaigns, nor can the actions be coordinated with the campaigns.

    So you don’t understand the issue.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Is it hypocritical for so-called “small government” conservatives to favor a “government expansionist” like Trump?

    How do you reconcile the massive infrastructure project called “The Wall”, the intrusive police state needed to support The Mexican Deportation, The Muslim Ban and now the Muslim Inquisition/Deportation, with your desire for small government?

    In you really in favor of quadrupling (at least) the number of federal agents necessary to track down and interrogate every Hispanic and Middle-Eastern, South Asia looking resident? Not to mention birth certificate checkers at bathroooms!

    AND all while cutting taxes on the wealthy!

  10. Hoagie says:

    A wall is not “infrastructure”, that would be a highway or a bridge. A wall along the border is a national security concern, well within the jurisdiction of the feds. It can easily be paid for with the proposed 20% flat tax and elimination of 20,000 IRS employees and the hiring of 20,000 border guards. (and the flat tax isn’t on just the rich, it’s on everybody because as “small government conservatives” we believe all Americans should be treated equally)

    Moslem deportation is also a security issue and after the initial cost the billions a year in savings by not paying benefits to these people will ultimately pay for itself and then some. Not to mention if we save just one life. It’s for the children.

    We never needed “birth certificate checkers” at bathrooms for the last thousand years so I see no need for them now. Or is that just your leftist hysterics showing? It’s just illegal to use the opposite sex’s facilities just like it’s been since you were born. It worked before or can’t you remember the last ….oh all of your life?

  11. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    If anyone here can not understand things, it is you. I even feel that John has more sense. Hillary is putting up a smoke screen. She is crooked as hell.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    So you’re a hypocrite on government spending and fascism.

    Would you tattoo numbers on the inside forearms of the Muslims?

  13. Hoagie says:

    I described to you how the security wall can be built without increasing spending. Are you blind or willfully stupid? And once again you project your fascism on me. Who said anything about tattoos, Jeffery? I want the enemies of America out of America. Is that hard to understand? Why do you want people here who openly and demonstrably want to kill us and our families and replace our republic with a caliphate?

    You argued previously that there are exceptions to the rights in the Constitution like owning a fully automatic assault rifle or shouting fire in a theatre. So there are exceptions in religions and other groups who desire our death. Once we have established the Constitution is flexible it can be flexible about moslems.

    Again, it would be easier to discuss things if you didn’t get all hysterical.

  14. Hoagie says:

    BTW, the First Amendment states regards to religion Congress cannot “prohibit the free exercise thereof”. Yet if one wants a two minute personal prayer at school they can’t. And there are many more examples of peoples religious liberty being subjugated or eliminated all together.

  15. Jl says:

    Jeffry again confirms why he’s the resident drama queen at this site. “Would you tattoo numbers…?” No one has ever even remotely pushed for that, fool. “Cut taxes but keep Asa’s and Medicare.? Those two programs of course take money out of your paycheck every week, which one uses latter in life. But you knew that. “Republicans and their wealthy donors enact a policy and Teach expects the Democrats to voluntarily disarm?” Didn’t know a Supreme Court decision was an enactment of a policy. Here I thought it was a First Amendment issue. Jeffery cannot make one logical argument against the 1st Amendment aspect of it, but instead whines hypocritically against wealthy R. donors, forgetting the D’s have as much, or more wealthy donors themselves. But the best is “do you expect Dems to voluntarily disarm ..” Why yes. Speaking of hypocrites, if Clinton is so against this decision, why is she benefiting of it in the mean time? You obviously are as dumb as you type. P.S. J-try using the word “wealthy” a bit more in your rants, I don’t think you use it enough.

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    It’s just another example of the political donor class and their conservative minions solidifying the wealthy’s grip on the commonweal.

    Actually this is funny. I notice you call it conservative minions.

    The democrats get as much if not more money from corporations AND they get the luxury of additionally support from unions.

    In fact I would dare to guess that all those Democrats railing against Corporations when they leave congress GO TO WORK FOR A CORPORATION.

    Politicians are such liars, thiefs and cowards. Thats why I will hold my nose and pull the handle for trump. He is not a politician and makes no bones about being rich.

    Hillary acts as if its a crime while she rolls around in her 100’s of millions of her own money.

    Pathetic.

  17. David7134 says:

    Liam,
    Jeff owns a big corporation.

  18. Jeffery says:

    I guess tattooing was a dumb idea. You guys can tell Muslims, Mexicans and Negroes without tattoos.

    Just a few clarifying questions:

    How will the Muslim/sharia interviews happen? Should we force Muslims to register as Trump proposed – that way the FBI could easily find them and interview them.

    What is the procedure for deporting an American citizen for their beliefs?

    If a guy born in Detroit who converted to Islam is shown to harbor positive feelings for sharia, to where will you deport him?

    If a teenager born to Muslim parents in Brooklyn NY does not condemn sharia, to where will you deport her?

  19. Jeffery says:

    Hey Fascist,

    Perhaps we should have the FBI interview all far-rightists and deport those who believe Newt’s and Donald’s ideas on Muslims are reasonable.

  20. drowningpuppies says:

    Perhaps we should have the FBI interview all far-rightists and deport those who believe Newt’s and Donald’s ideas on Muslims are reasonable.

    Hey dipshit, far rightists, Newt, and Donald are not the problem in this country.

    They’re not killing cops.

    Keep sucking that ISIS cock, little guy.

  21. Liam Thomas says:

    It’s ironic that the far left which I firmly place mr. jefferson there…….is defending murdering rapist and cop killers while trying to deflect the debate to deportation of muslims for their beliefs.

    While it might be a great thought for far righties to have about deporting an American citizen its hardly going to happen.

    there is this thing called the constitution that would prevent this from ever happening. The day it becomes illegal and deportable for beliefs is the day I permanenty transfer all my money overseas and leave this country for good.

    America used to be great…..now its a stink hole sucking the life out of its citizens in the name of far left and far right ideals.

    How anyone can justify cop killing and sharia law in America is mind blowing…but then I guess……a troll will do and say anything to get a rise out of righties.

  22. Jeffery says:

    The intellectual center of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich, and apparently most Covians, support temporarily suspending the Constitution to solve their “Muslim problem”. True?

    Laim correctly points out the flaws in both Mr. Newt’s and Hoagie’s argument but then incorrectly, bizarrely and curiously claims that pointing out those flaws is tantamount to defending “murdering rapist cop killers” and sharia law.

    US law does not allow for sharia law. Period. It’s a bogeyman created by Islamophobes.

    dave – You’re lying again. I do not own a large corporation. I cofounded a small one and am now merely an investor and employee. It’s clear you do not understand the inner workings of venture investing, entrepreneurs and capitalism.

  23. Liam Thomas says:

    US law does not allow for sharia law. Period. It’s a bogeyman created by Islamophobes.

    While this might be true….what is the law and what is permitted is two entirely different things.

    To wit: A group of Muslims in northern Texas has created what may be the first official Shariah law system in the United States.

    The Shariah tribunal in Irving, Texas, is trying to assure Americans they’re not planning to follow the type of Shariah law practiced in Muslim countries.

    In those places, severe punishments are common, women have very few rights, and blasphemy against Mohammed can result in a death sentence.

    But tribunal judge Imam Moujahed Bakhach is denying that will happen in America.

    “The misconception about what they see through the media is that Shariah means cut the head, chop the heads, cut the hands, and we are not in that,” he said. “We are not here to invade the White House or invade Austin.”

  24. Liam Thomas says:

    In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

    “It is because of our need that Allah the Almighty, in all his generosity, has created laws for us, so that we can utilize them to obtain justice. We hope to see other cities taking this action in the face of the governments inaction of passing such legislation”.

  25. Liam Thomas says:

    @Jeffery

    You are so busy finding flaws with fellow Americans who happen to be conserative or libertarian that you fail to realize that there is more then one Baba Yaga in the world.

    But we know that muslims help democrats get elected….Im sure if they voted for Republicans you would be all over them like stink on shit just like you are over christians whose coalition votes GOP while probably 80 percent of democratic voters are Christian in one form or another.

  26. Hoagie says:

    You guys can tell Muslims, Mexicans and Negroes without tattoos.

    For the most part yes, can’t you? Or are you so white everybody else “all look alike” to you?

    How will the Muslim/sharia interviews happen? Should we force Muslims to register as Trump proposed – that way the FBI could easily find them and interview them.

    The same way we di it in WWII.

    What is the procedure for deporting an American citizen for their beliefs?

    Notify them of pending deportation. Deport.

    If a guy born in Detroit who converted to Islam is shown to harbor positive feelings for sharia, to where will you deport him?

    Medina.

    If a teenager born to Muslim parents in Brooklyn NY does not condemn sharia, to where will you deport her?

    Medina.

    There are exceptions to all our rights and this is no different. Any member of an organization that actively is trying to kill ua and replace our government is at war with us, idiot. They should be banned from the country unless you think it’s smart to bring the enemy in.

  27. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Conservatives to a man want to cut federal spending, but insist in keeping their Social Security and Medicare. Is that hypocrisy or just playing by the rules as they are?

    This conservative had no choice but to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes; if the government is going to take that money from me, in exchange for the ‘promise’ that I’ll receive those benefits when I reach retirement age, then I want those benefits!

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: even if I had a billion dollars in the bank, I would file for every last penny of the Social Security and Medicare benefits I’m due.

  28. Hoagie says:

    The absurdity of claiming the First Amendment does not protect Christian bakers, Christians from financially supporting organizations which are against their beliefs, the idea that a prayer somehow “establishes” a religion yet we can’t recognize an enemy because he happens to be a certain religion is insane. The First Amendment has many exceptions to both religious freedom and that of speech as well as assembly. Why are you suddenly opposed to an exception which would keep Americans alive?

    I understand why, as a fascist yourself, you would find agreement with how much the moslems hate America and specifically Christians since they too believe in fascism, however their fascism is theocratic which is the establishing of a state religion. You radical leftists believe just saying grace before lunch at school is “establishing a religion” so how are you okay with an entire government run by theocrats? Other that the aforementioned hatred of America and Christians. You do realize they want to kill you heathens even more than the rest of us, don’t you?

  29. Jeffery says:

    Hoagie,

    Rather than telling us how horrible you think all Muslims are, would you tell us how you plan to force them out of America?

    I suspect from your rants that you favor a christian theocracy in the US, and would force little kids whether christian, Muslim, agnostic or Jewish to suffer through State sanctioned christian prayers. In my public grammar school as a child (1957-1962) our teachers led us in christian prayers and as a young Baptist I wasn’t offended as much as bored. But what if there had been Muslims or Jews (few in the Ozarks) in class? One friend, Danny, was a Jehovah’s Witness and was always shamed for not reciting Pledge of Allegiance.

    Anyway, nowadays that is largely behind us. Are you offended that the State can’t force schoolchildren to pray? Obviously, there are no restrictions on private prayers as long as you’re not disturbing others.

    What you refuse to address is how, under the constraints of our Constitution, the State can force someone to think as you do.

    Rather than telling us how horrible you think all Muslims are, would you tell us how you plan to force them out of America?

    Do you agree with Newt Gingrich that we ask every Muslim if they support sharia, and if they answer yes, we deport them?

    Hoagie, Actually I’m just mocking you. You are so far wrong on this that it’s hard to even pretend.

  30. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Removing people from the US is no problem. In the case of the Muslim cult, you indicate that they will be interned until the end of the war on terror. If they wish to leave the US, then they will be allowed to do so. Same with the illegal wet backs in the country.

  31. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    Now we’re making progress! So you would round up all Muslims and send them to camp. Would you forgo Newt’s Inquisition?

    Wetbacks too!

    Why not Negroes while you’re at it.

    Wouldn’t that be the perfect world for the right? You would think that Hispanics, Blacks and Muslims would be more supportive of the Republicans!

  32. David7134 says:

    Jeff,
    On the other hand we could be pussies like you and watch people die and our country overrun like Rome.

  33. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You smelly old man.

    You wish to purge America of all non-whites. Big surprise. The KKK was way ahead of you.

    I applaud you and Hoagie for being honest in your anti-American, pro-white bigotry.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5608 access attempts in the last 7 days.