May 15, 2015

"If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice."

"And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."
On Thursday, Clinton also reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, a long-shot effort that is nonetheless popular among Democratic activists.

"She said she is going to do everything she can," the attendee said. "She was very firm about this – that this Supreme Court decision is just a disaster."
My thoughts:

[ADDED: FIRST, let me be clear that quote that begins this post is something Bernie Sanders said on one of the Sunday talk shows. The blocked and indented quote is from Hillary, and it's something she said to donors at a closed meeting that was leaked by an attendee whom the Washington Post is keeping anonymous. The Post relates that Hillary "got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" Citizens United and calls this a "pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees." I don't know that Hillary ever used the term "litmus test," and it sounds as though she's under pressure because of what Sanders had said.]

1. I don't believe this pledge. I think she's saying this because she thinks it's politically advantageous, so: Why does she think that?

2. Normally, what Presidents and presidential candidates say is that they don't have any "litmus test." It's been considered politic to act as though you are choosing Justices in a soberly meritocratic fashion, posing as if you value judicial independence and cases decided according to the law. These Presidents and presidential candidates may nevertheless have a litmus test, of course. They just choose not to say so.

3. Citizens United! is an incantation, but who is it for, who responds to it and why? Very few people have much understanding of what the case was actually about, so incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics. I suspect Hillary Clinton has a good deal of contempt for the little people of America whom she needs to like her and who did not find her likable enough last time.

4. One thing Citizens United was about was a movie about Hillary, "Hillary: The Movie":


106 comments:

carrie said...

If you have liberal friends in Wisconsin, all of the Walker haters also hate the Citizens United case, whether they understand it or not. She will get votes by saying that stance.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight....

Hillary Clinton doesn't like to be criticized. The Supreme Court decided, too bad, it's free speech for your detractors to criticize you. In order to put a stop to such a terrible thing, Hillary is promising us she will use force of government to remove our free speech rights so she can no longer be criticized?

Ugh.

Big Mike said...

... so incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics. I suspect Hillary Clinton has a good deal of contempt for the little people of America ...

Both are true. "Citizens United" is a dog whistle for the left wing looney fringe. She figures that she needs to reach out to them to win her essentially uncontested (so far) primary.

MountainMan said...

I have yet to talk to a Democrat - and even here in very red East TN I do know a few - who understands what the case was even about or who can explain the decision. The only thing they know is that it needs to be overturned. When I try to explain it to them they don't even want to hear it. The only thing they seem to all be able to spout is that "corporations aren't people" and they thought the proposed Constitutional amendment to deny the Bill of Rights to corporations was absolutely necessary or America is ruined.

MadisonMan said...

I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians she claims.

Just get some more "donations" from foreign sources, Hillary!!!.

It's not like they'll want a quo for their quid.

MadisonMan said...

In other words, I think this proclamation of hers is an attempted diversion from the Clinton$' cash-grabbing from Foreign Corporations.

Filed under: Nice Try, Clinton$.

deepelemblues said...

Well since she isn't even going to be the nominee of her party I don't see where her pronouncements on anything are relevant. Except in the context of a campaign sinking into the quicksand of her mouth. All it's going to take is one debate with Martin O'Malley or Senator (!) Warren and Democratic primary voters will fall over themselves to go against her one more time.

traditionalguy said...

Only Clinton laundered money is safe money. Bill and Hill will Clean your billions or we will make spending them into a crime against the people!

mikee said...

Another reason NOT to vote for Hillary: she want to nominate a SC justice who will decide a case not on the merits and the constitution, but in a predetermined manner.

Hey, I'd like a SC justice who rules in some case that I get a truckload of cash.

So Hillary and I have that one desire in common, anyway.

Original Mike said...

"Very few people have much understanding of what the case was actually about, so incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics."

Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left.

Original Mike said...

"I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians"

I had to look up how to spell chutzpah.

Sigivald said...

Very few people have much understanding of what the case was actually about, so incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics

Political value from the incantation depends on them not knowing what it was actually about, so she's quite adept here.

(What Big Mike said.)

The Cracker Emcee said...

Fen's Law on steroids.

MartyH said...

It's funny that the Left frequently accuses conservatives of not being capable of nuanced thinking, but their perpetual misunderstanding of Bush v Gore and Citizens United demonstrates either duplicity (toward the voters) or an incredibly simplistic view of the world.

David said...

I have seemingly intelligent liberal friends who are completely at sea when asked to describe what Citizens United did. They actually have no idea.

Ann Althouse said...

"Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left."

Yeah, but why?

In any event, since we know it's somehow come to be red meat to the left, her use of it here as her "litmus test" indicates that she's trying to rope in the lefties and stave off encroachment by Bernie Sanders and Eliz Warren.

Chuck said...

I think the Clinton statement is great! As an ardent Clinton opponent, I say that.

It is great, because unlike statements about taxes, or budgets, or priorities, or racial relations... words relating to judicial nominations have meaning, and they stick. Mrs. Clinton has now utterly poisoned the confirmation hearing for any nominee she names. A Republican-led Senate Judiciary would have a field day with any Clinton nominee over this. And pity the poor nominee who has to defend an attack on the First Amendment. To say nothing of the fact that Citizens United v FEC dealt with a documentary film critical of Mrs. Clinton.

The thoughtful opponents of Citizens United (I respect diversity of thought enough to recognize that there are thoughtful -- and wrong -- opponents of Citizens United) could not possibly find a worse advocate than Hillary Clinton.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Hillary!: "I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

Why does that make me think of Henry VII and Anne Boleyn?

Her coronation was a lavish affair; the king spared no expense. But the people of London were noticeably unimpressed. They cried out ‘HA! HA!’ mockingly as tapestries decorated with Henry and Anne’s entwined initials passed by.

Anonymous said...

To clarify: the quote in your headline and first paragraph is from Bernie Sanders.

As for Clinton, anything she doesn't know about being bought by billionaires probably isn't worth knowing.

Original Mike said...

"Yeah, but why?

Maybe because the left already had a belief in State censorship vis-a-vis elections. Citizens United is an affront to that existing belief.

Nonapod said...

incanting Citizens United! is a pretty idiotic approach to politics

I'm not so sure. Idiots often respond passionately to short, idiotic incantations. And there's certainly no shortage of emotional idiots out there, especially on the left.

THOMASt WREN said...

Hillary Clinton: "I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”
She added: "But, I do think they should be able to contribute, without limit, to charitable foundations controlled by political candidates. I particularly think this is so in the case of Foreign leaders whose interests may, or may not, serve the interests of the United States."
Okay, I made the last quote up, but I am confident it accurately conveys her sentiments.

Scott M said...

Isn't this the same candidate that accepted foreign money for her campaign from untraceable credit card transactions?

policraticus said...

I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.

Irony is dead.

DEAD.

n.n said...

Her "litmus test" is purely self-serving.

That said, the exclusion of domestic and foreign corporations, unions, NGOs, non-profits, JournoLists, untraceable/transferable donations, etc. from influencing the political process would be welcome, if not actually practicable.

Hagar said...

Hillary!'s campaign roll-out did not go well, and I think what is going on now is a furious process of polling for issues across the country and crafting a follow-up campaign to win the nomination, while considering the flip-flops next necessary for the campaign to get elected.

Hillary! has no instincts for politics, so it is all carefully premeditated and scheduled dishonesty.

Nonapod said...

And I don't think that it matters whether the people she is trying to win over are aware of the actual specifics of the case (beyond hearing some snarky Jon Stewart comments or glancing at some Huffpo headlines), just that it has something to do with some big bad corporations trying to screw over the little guy with money to garner political influence or whatevs.

Hagar said...

So, how does she feel about politicians buying billionaires?

Todd said...

Scott M said...
Isn't this the same candidate that accepted foreign money for her campaign from untraceable credit card transactions?

5/15/15, 12:27 PM


Not sure if Hillary! did it but Obama did.

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

Alito said CU wouldn't be a bad thing because outside groups can't coordinate with candidates. Helllooooo Wisconsin!

Todd said...

THOMASt WREN said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Hillary Clinton: "I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”
She added: "But, I do think they should be able to contribute, without limit, to charitable foundations controlled by political candidates. I particularly think this is so in the case of Foreign leaders whose interests may, or may not, serve the interests of the United States."
Okay, I made the last quote up, but I am confident it accurately conveys her sentiments.

5/15/15, 12:26 PM


Hillary Clinton: "I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”
She added: "But, I do think they should be able to contribute, without limit, to charitable foundations controlled by political candidates one of whom was is a former President and the other who has been a Senator as well as Secretary of State. I particularly think this is so in the case of Foreign leaders whose interests may, or may not, serve the interests of the United States."

There, tightened it up for you to more accurately reflect her position...

Coupe said...

She doesn't look tired, she looks like she has crabs. Thanks Huma and Carlos Danger for that...

I say that, because she's way too fat to reach those parts and shave. Her arms are too short.

Gabriel said...

In other words, Hillary Clinton is going to appoint justices that would rule in her favor in cases that would benefit her personally.

Well, say what you will about the tenets of Clintonism, at least it's an ethos.

James Pawlak said...

The only "litmus test" should/must be if the nominee will defend the "Bill Of Rights" as written and within the limits set by the Authors.

Fen said...

"I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

Finally, proof that the gods do not exist. Because if they did, lightning would have flashed from the sky and incinerated her.

Bob Boyd said...

The quote at the top of this blog post is from Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton.
Your points are no less valid, but in the interest of accuracy...

Birches said...

Gosh, Hillary!'s advisers are tone deaf...

lemondog said...

"I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

From that do we assume Georgy S. bot BO?

Soros was a huge financial backer of Democrats during the 2004 election cycle, donating an estimated $27.5 million. He also contributed heavily to Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama that year.

Brando said...

She's doing everything possible to let intelligent people know exactly how unfit for the presidency she is. Between the hypocrisy of a Clinton complaining about money in politics, the obvious pandering to the far Left and the implication that she will not only have a litmus test for judicial nominees (which sadly many presidents have, but at least make a pretense about not having one--a nominee who says how they'd rule on a hypothetical future case is not fit for the court so a person who would openly call for such a litmus test is not fit to be president) but also use it to overturn the very case that made it legal to critic upsize her in this manner--please America, spare us this awful person. Surely the GOP can come up with someone who can win?

Sammy Finkelman said...

She might mean that, because it would make the U.S. less democratic.

The only problem for her, is, who is next in line in the Clinton machine?

There's really nobody.

Anthony Weiner?

CStanley said...

She's doing everything possible to let intelligent people know exactly how unfit for the presidency she is

Exactly! Either she really doesn't want it and is (consciously or unconsciously) sabotaging herself, or she is calculating that there aren't very many intelligent voters. The trouble is, if that's what she is thinking she may be right.

Sebastian said...

"1. I don't believe this pledge. I think she's saying this because she thinks it's politically advantageous"

That's as much belief as is needed for political pledges.

"3. Citizens United! is an incantation, but who is it for, who responds to it and why?"

1. It's for Progs who despise CU. 2. It's for liberals who see the SC as the last bastion of conservatism. 3. It's to signal that no one shall pass her on the left.

"a pretty idiotic approach to politics"

Worked for Barry, may work for her.

"I suspect Hillary Clinton has a good deal of contempt for the little people of America whom she needs to like her"

So does Barry. But he was better at making contempt cool.

Mark O said...

She sounds like someone who flunked the bar exam.

Wait. What? She did flunk the bar exam.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hillary Clinton told this....

...to a group of her top fundraisers Thursday.

This is a promise that nobody else will be able to run a campaign against anyone they support. At least she'll try.



kcom said...

I must be pretty intelligent because I understand exactly how unfit she is.

the wolf said...

The only thing they seem to all be able to spout is that "corporations aren't people" and they thought the proposed Constitutional amendment to deny the Bill of Rights to corporations was absolutely necessary or America is ruined.

Democrats do very well on sloganeering, not so good on details. Which is why they stick with the slogans.

"Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left."

Yeah, but why?


Ditto.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The quote is indeed from Bernie Sanders.

The article seems to say other people heard her say something along those same lines, without the word "litmus test" but it probably was not recorded.

MadisonMan said...

A test to see if I read the link.

Failed!

Sammy Finkelman said...

This was not targeted at ordinary people.

This was targeted at people who give, collect, and launder campaign contributions, basically saying she's for rigging the U.S. political system to handicap any independent and unpredictable or unexpected people, and that they may not have to spend so much money to buy a close connection to a President, and won't have to do it so often.

Some of the people in the room maybe didn't like that.

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry I wasn't clear about the part that was from Bernie Sanders.

I added a paragraph to clarify.

She's probably mostly adapting to Sanders bringing up the issue. Whatever she said was said in a private meeting.

Fritz said...

Litmus is pink, so is Hillary.

Levi Starks said...

If she's elected, doesn't that in itself prove that citizens United is rather meaningless? Unless she's also claiming that billion dollar corperations want her to win?

Henry said...

The true laugh line in that article comes almost at the very end: "There was no sense that old Clinton loyalists had higher ranking than newer supporters, attendees said."

That truly shows the common touch. New money is just as welcome as old.

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mingus Jerry said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left."

Yeah, but why?

Because the left hates corporations/capitalism. They don't want corporations to donate money to political causes/campaigns. The left media doesn't like it because they want to be the sole opinion makers and don't want corporations to take that from them.

Anonymous said...

Why then should they allow one "people's" right, but deny another. Are corporations semi-people, or full-on people?

I can't tell if this is meant to be serious, or silly.

If serious, I'd suggest reading up on Corporate Personhood. There are lot's of ways corporations aren't people.

Gahrie said...

"Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left."

Yeah, but why?


What part of low information voters don't you understand?

traditionalguy said...

Our great Politboro Party Chairman has spoken.

Let it be written. Let it be done!

She speaks with the full power and authority of The New World News Media which had a near monopoly on political speech donations done as in kind 24/7 political commentary, before that rogue Supreme Court claimed power under that outdated Constitution thingee.

Todd said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Understand it or not, it is red meat to the left."

Yeah, but why?

5/15/15, 12:14 PM


I believe it is due to the perception on the side of "rank and file" leftists / progressives that "big business" is evil and bad. That they are all corrupt and anything they do is suspect. That this "corporate" money is "less pure" than citizen money. That corporate money "drowns out" little people money because they have more. As others have pointed out, this is great sloganeering as it obfuscates the issue nicely while serving as a nice "dog whistle" for the left.

Most don't understand that news organizations are corporations too and yet they are deemed "honest" voices when time and again they are shown to be anything but. George S. is wealthy enough to donate more than many corporations but he is the right kind of billionaire so its all good. Except for that evil Fox News, nearly all of the real news organizations are the right kind of corporations so it is all good. Unions are the right kind of corporations so it is all good.

How dare conservatives band together to try an overcome the progressive megaphone that is the MSM, hollywood, higher education, and unions. For progressives "This Shall Not Stand!".

richard mcenroe said...

Is she going to turn state's evidence on the Clinton Foundation, then?

richard mcenroe said...

More and more it looks like John Ringo nailed Hillary in "The Last Centurion".

richard mcenroe said...

Proglodytes hate Citizens United because they hate being talked back to. All of them. Everywhere.

And can you blame them? it gets tiring defending the indefensible.

garage mahal said...

Stupid libtards can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.

Chris said...

In any event, since we know it's somehow come to be red meat to the left, her use of it here as her "litmus test" indicates that she's trying to rope in the lefties and stave off encroachment by Bernie Sanders and Eliz Warren.

I think that's about right, but I don't believe Hillary Clinton worries about Sanders or Warren.

I wonder who she does worry might seriously challenge her. Not anyone to her left, like Sanders and Warren; the point of Clinton offering red meat to Democrats now is a preemptive measure against a credible moderate Democrat entering the race.

Todd said...

garage mahal said...

Stupid libtards can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.

5/15/15, 1:37 PM


And here comes garage to prove why Hillary! gets away with things like this.

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

tim in vermont said...

Hillary is one more acolyte of Alynski, and power is what she wants. Free speech is like a train with these people, you get off when you reach your stop.

Tank said...

Tired?

What if Hillary were already dead and her presidency turned out to be four years of a Weekend at Bernies?

Anonymous said...

Blogger garage mahal said...
Stupid libtards can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.


The CU decision was about currency?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

Stupid libtards...

I'll grant you that point

...can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.

So you think a law prohibiting the New York Times from spending money on ink, or preventing MSNBC from spending money on electricity, would be constitutional since money does not equal speech ( or press )?

Big Mike said...

@Todd, I agree that she looks tired. So does The Doctor.

Ann Althouse said...

"Because the left hates corporations/capitalism. They don't want corporations to donate money to political causes/campaigns. The left media doesn't like it because they want to be the sole opinion makers and don't want corporations to take that from them."

Of course, Citizens United is not about contributions to candidates. It's about spending your own money to get your speech out there, including if you group together with other people in the form known as a corporation, e.g., The New York Times Corporation.

Gabriel said...

@garage mahal:Stupid libtards can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.

In your case your description is perfectly accurate-- you are a stupid libtard.

But as usual, you can't engage with your opponents' actual opinion, so you make one up and argue with that one.

Mingus Jerry said...

Of course, Citizens United is not about contributions to candidates. It's about spending your own money to get your speech out there, including if you group together with other people in the form known as a corporation, e.g., The New York Times Corporation.

You know that, and I know that, but the people to whom Hillary was speaking don't. That's why she said it.

hawkeyedjb said...

So, how is this going to work? When a court vacancy occurs, the people who vet candidates are going to ask: "If there is a future case that deals with the issues behind Citizens United, do you promise to render your verdict now, before hearing the case?"

That means Pres. Clinton would promise only to nominate those who prove themselves prejudiced and unqualified.

Come to think of it, I guess that's the point.

Real American said...

These leftists are such fucking hypocrites. They really mean that billionaires shouldn't be able to spend their money to help Republicans win elections or advance conservative causes. They do not apply these principles to the leftists Soroses of the world who spend their money helping Democrats and leftists, and there is far more of that than big money on the Right.

Marty Keller said...

The joke on the earnest lovers of the People is that Billary, Obama, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, and all the rest of the them are and have for a long time been in bed with the very plutocrats these lefties denounce with such righteous anger. They manipulate the ingenuous with faux denunciations like those in Althouse's post but don't mean any of it for a second.

The rent-seekers and the progs do have one thing in common that keeps this nasty alliance intact: they are citizens united in their contempt for American founding principles promoting individual freedom and responsibility. Thus the gullible ignore the obvious in silly hope that their masters will someday share the spoils with them. Ask Black Americans how well that promise is kept.

Oh, wait . . .

EDH said...

Birches said...
Gosh, Hillary!'s advisers are tone deaf...

Unless that advisor is Bill Clinton, and he doesn't want her to win.

MadisonMan said...

@Todd, I agree that she looks tired. So does The Doctor.

The doctor looks like Lucius Caecilius.

Gusty Winds said...

The Post relates that Hillary "got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" Citizens United and calls this a "pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees."

Well at least Hillary has stopped pretending that Justices are impartial and not political. About time someboday did.

Douglas said...

I need Laszlo to tell me what to think about this.

chickelit said...

Hillary doesn't say much publicly anymore (or it's not being reported)...it's all behind closed doors. I wonder if she can keep that up much longer. People should wonder more about that.

Todd said...

I think at this point Hillary is a litmus test. Either you have a clue and would vote for Hillary if and only if the only two names on the ballot are "Hillary" verses "Beelzebub" or you are a partizan through and through and care not for justice or this country. It really is that simple.

Name one single positive accomplishment that this person (Hillary, not Beelzebub) has done in her entire public career. One demonstrable positive good thing. Bet you can not do it. It is a national shame that anyone can even consider her running for any public office. Such is our country today...

garage mahal said...

So you think a law prohibiting the New York Times from spending money on ink, or preventing MSNBC from spending money on electricity, would be constitutional since money does not equal speech ( or press )?

Not sure why you think this is such a great gotcha. Does the NYT sink billions of dollars into elections?

Larvell said...

So let me get this straight:

In Hillary's world, campaign contributions are basically presumed to be bribes, but promising to vote a certain way in exchange for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is fine.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

Not sure why you think this is such a great gotcha. Does the NYT sink billions of dollars into elections?

No, but they sink much more into them then Citizens United tried to.

How about you answer the question, then people can judge for themselves how good of a gotcha it is?

If you choose not to answer, we can all assume that any answer you could come up with would make you look worse than you do by not answering.

Original Mike said...

"Does the NYT sink billions of dollars into elections?"

No, not billions. Many, many millions, but not billions.

chickelit said...

Original Mike wrote:

No, not billions. Many, many millions, but not billions.

Exactly. The NYT has a failed business model and must be keep afloat somehow.

garage mahal said...

Super PACs are printing presses? Seriously, how do I respond to that?

EMD said...

Does the NYT sink billions of dollars into elections?

Uh, yes?

Clyde said...

"I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians."

Bwahahahahaha!

I can't believe she actually said that with a straight face! How many billionaires have bought influence with the Clintons? Moreover, how many FOREIGN billionaires have bought influence with the Clintons? The answer, of course is "too many."

Gabriel said...

@garage mahal:Super PACs are printing presses? Seriously, how do I respond to that?

Is the Internet a printing press?

What about an American flag you light on fire?

You are working overtime on pretending to be stupid.

averagejoe said...

Incredible chutzpah, even for a world-class hypocrite and liar like Clinton. It's simply astonishing to me that anyone would support this corrupt, unprincipled, deceitful and incompetent politician. Sanders is similarly worthless and detestable. Democrat party members are the nearest thing we have in have in America to Nazi party followers, to Stalinist communist party stalwarts. Completely corrupt, dishonest, shameless and ruthless. Despicable and disgraceful.

garage mahal said...

Is the Internet a printing press?

Were there limitations on how or how much the NYT could spend on their operations before CU?

Anonymous said...

Not sure why you think this is such a great gotcha. Does the NYT sink billions of dollars into elections?

Did Citizens United?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Damn, there're self-serving statements and then there's Hillary, I'm actually impressed.

"I won't appoint any Supremes who won't promise to rule that it should be illegal for people to get together and spend their own money to express disapproval of me."

Does anyone else remember the CU oral argument where Hillary's side admitted ruling their way would mean certain books might be banned during election season? Ah, the side of the little guy, thanks Democrats!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal said....
Were there limitations on how or how much the NYT could spend on their operations before CU?


Yeah, no fair trying to even things up you stupid non-Leftists, we're the Media and we're the only ones who can group together and make ourselves heard! If the Media just happens to be Left, too bad for everyone else! Way to argue the status quo you sneaky conservative Mahal.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal Stupid libtards can't comprehend how currency is the same exact thing as the 1st Amendment. Um, duh.

Just to ask, but do you think the 1st amendment's use of the word "press" means only the NYT and the WashPost, do you think the Framers also had in mind things like the pamphlets, circular letters, and other similar personally-published media used to support or oppose political questions or people back in those days? You know, the ones that played a large part in the American Revolution, and many of which were in fact written by people who later wrote and ratified, ah, the Constitution itself?
Money spent to produce a pamphlet, a book, or a movie about a political issue or person is definitely protected by the 1st Amendment. The fact that Citizens United helps enforce that view bothers some people, but trying to turn the issue into one of "$ vs ink!" just won't work.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Legit question for garage et alia:

The recent book Clinton Cash attacks the Clintons and their charity organization. The author and publisher do not work for any campaign, but since Clinton is a declared Presidential candidate this book may harm her candidacy.
Forgetting the actual Citizens United ruling, would you have the FEC step in and prevent the publication of this book? Would you consider it campaign advocacy somehow, and subject it's sale to some kind of spending limits? If so for what candidate or candidates? If an independently-published book (independent w/r/t an opposing candidate) comes out during a campaign should the FEC have the power to prevent that book's sale, pull it off the shelves, maybe burn existing copies? What if the publisher is a group of people who formed an organization with the intent to spread the book's particular message a widely as possible? What if that organization was a (gasp!) corporation?!?!
Are you fellas actually for book burning, as long as we're talking about the right books? How is trying to prevent a movie from being viewed appreciably different?

SteveR said...

I agree with the viewpoint that most liberals who rail about Citizens United no little or nothing about the case and the decision except for the general premise that it has allowed the Koch Brothers to buy elections for Republicans.

This insight is based on talking points. Like garage demonstrates all the time, they don't make you right or smart.

Paul said...

Hillary don't want those 'billionaires' to buy politicians.... she wants her Clinton Foundation to buy it.

After all, it looks like the Arabs bought her when she was Secretary of State.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

garage mahal said...

Not sure why you think this is such a great gotcha.

I think it is a great gotcha because even you know that you can't answer it without entirely undermining you previous statement, or showing that you oppose the entire concept of free speech.

Thanks for playing.

Gabriel said...

@Ignorance is Bliss:showing that you oppose the entire concept of free speech.

Oh, that ship has long sailed for garage. He believes in free speech for the right people and no speech for the wrong people, and he'll decide which are which, or those who agree with him about which are which will get to decide.

There's not a contradiction at all--his premises are very different from ours.

averagejoe said...

Scott M said...
Isn't this the same candidate that accepted foreign money for her campaign from untraceable credit card transactions?

5/15/15, 12:27 PM

That was Obama during the McCain/presidential campaign. Hillary probably did it too, but Obama was the one whose underhanded and illegal online activities received such fellating admiration from democrat party members.

Aarradin said...

"1. I don't believe this pledge. I think she's saying this because she thinks it's politically advantageous, ...."

No. She's absolutely serious. Why would you think otherwise?

There are already 4 SCOTUS Justices that would rule against the 1st Amendment if given another shot at Citizens United (which itself was a 5-4 ruling). There are only a precious few elected D's at the federal level that would not abolish the 1st Amendment, in its entirety, if given the chance. So, why doubt the leader of their Party doesn't actively oppose the existence of the 1st as well?

Marc Puckett said...

Todd, BigMike, The problem with using the Doctor's trick re Hillary! is that Harriet Jones (?) had, to that point, been doing the Lord's work. Mrs Clinton has been awful from the beginning.