Clinton to take on Citizens United ruling, hopes to pass Constitutional amendment to end it - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — Nobody knows Citizens United quite like Hillary Rodham Clinton. The name of the conservative advocacy group, which five years ago won a landmark Supreme Court case governing campaign finance, has become the preferred shorthand for talking about money in politics. That decision led to the creation of the super PAC — groups that can accept contributions of any size and will spend hundreds of millions to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. "I want to tell you, Citizens United was about me," the Democratic presidential front-runner said last month in Iowa. "Think how that makes me feel. A lot of people don't know that, but the backstory is eye-opening." After spending the first few months of her campaign bemoaning "secret, unaccountable money" in politics, Clinton is coming out Tuesday with proposals to roll back the effects of the court decision, a plan that includes pushing Congress to clamp down on secret donors whose money makes its way into elections. And a new campaign video touches on the backstory, asserting she wants to overturn the Citizens United ruling because [B]"she knows firsthand what it's done to our democracy."[/B] Clinton's relationship with Citizens United dates to her husband's first campaign for president. As a small, upstart group in 1992, Citizens United published a paperback attacking Bill Clinton. The book, "Slick Willie," was part of a yearlong campaign to derail his presidential candidacy, which included stoking stories about Whitewater, a controversy about the Clintons' failed real estate development investments.[/quote] [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-citizens-united-struggle-is-deeply-personal-for-clinton-2015-9[/url] :jawdrop:

Watch this be promised and ignored

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723842]Watch this be promised and ignored[/QUOTE] Vast majority of campaign promises in US are kept statistically

So what exactly does this mean? Does she want to undo the limits on campaign donations, or...?

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;50723857]So what exactly does this mean? Does she want to undo the limits on campaign donations, or...?[/QUOTE] It means you may want to read the article to find out?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723842]Watch this be promised and ignored[/QUOTE] Yeah. That's some real damn optimism there. Hillary just can't do anything right for some of you can she.

[QUOTE=sb27;50723863]Yeah. That's some real damn optimism there. Hillary just can't do anything right for some of you can she.[/QUOTE] Hillary has a notable tendency to obey the people that offer her money. Voting for her or not, this is undeniable.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50723866]Hillary has a notable tendency to obey the people that offer her money. Voting for her or not, this is undeniable.[/QUOTE] You seriously think she would make such a public discussion about this, like this, if she were running at the behest of moneyed donors?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50723846]Vast majority of campaign promises in US are kept statistically[/QUOTE] Except if we are fucking stupid and elect Trump, A vast Majority of his promises wouldn't go through, because he has no idea how the government works. Edit: Really unlikely at this point, He's struggling to get even near Romney Level's of support,

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50723869]You seriously think she would make such a public discussion about this, like this, if she were running at the behest of moneyed donors?[/QUOTE] easy, spout about ending pacs, getting money from said pacs, and dont fulfill the wish after elected. its not that hard to understand.

[QUOTE=sb27;50723863]Yeah. That's some real damn optimism there. Hillary just can't do anything right for some of you can she.[/QUOTE] Hilary makes a promise and I'm supposed to believe her despite her record of not being truthful with promises? If I could I'd vote Hilary but that doesn't change my scepticism But nah go ahead quip at me

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50723869]You seriously think she would make such a public discussion about this, like this, if she were running at the behest of moneyed donors?[/QUOTE] It's not hard to believe that the candidate whose campaign is almost entirely funded by big money interests, might not take the issue of campaign finance reform seriously.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723923]Hilary makes a promise and I'm supposed to believe her despite her record of not being truthful with promises? If I could I'd vote Hilary but that doesn't change my scepticism But nah go ahead quip at me[/QUOTE] What's her record of broken promises? I genuinely want to know. Can you tell me off of the top of your head or is it something you say because everyone else says it?

[QUOTE=sb27;50723938]What's her record of broken promises? I genuinely want to know. Can you tell me off of the top of your head or is it something you say because everyone else says it?[/QUOTE] Well seeing as I didn't go investigate these myself, they won't count to you I'm sure. [url]http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/[/url]

Just as soon as she stops benefiting from it, I assume.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723923]Hilary makes a promise and I'm supposed to believe her despite her record of not being truthful with promises? If I could I'd vote Hilary but that doesn't change my scepticism But nah go ahead quip at me[/QUOTE] The Citizens United case involved a televised "documentary" called Hillary: The Movie, which was ruled "electioneering material." It's literally about slandering her. Of course she's against it. The idea that Hillary is [i]for[/i] a Supreme Court case that [i]was 100% about slandering her[/i] is just fucking hilariously stupid. You can't say she's self-interested and then say "except for that, she's okay with that one." She's [i]always[/i] been against the Citizens United case and not a single thing she's ever said hints even remotely that she's for it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723953]Well seeing as I didn't go investigate these myself, they won't count to you I'm sure. [url]http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/[/url][/QUOTE] They don't count. They are records of her making false statements, sure I can accept that, but not a single one of those is a broken electoral promise. So now I genuinely believe you spout 'she can't be trusted with promises' only because you read other people here saying the same thing.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50723866]Hillary has a notable tendency to obey the people that offer her money. Voting for her or not, this is undeniable.[/QUOTE] Hillary has a notable tendency to act as a representative. In the 90s, she was a "New Democrat" in response to Reagan conservatives and a much more conservative political environment - and she followed through on many of her more conservative promises, like the Clinton's new welfare plan and shit. Why would she renege on shit like gay marriage and Citizens United and all that? She's changed over time, no question, but she's changed in response to her constituents' opinions. She's not going to say "haha gotcha bitches" about this sort of shit and then overrule the Obergefell decision because the Koch brothers said they hate the gays.

She's going to have to run again in 4 years if she wins, not keeping this would backfire pretty tremendously.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50723966]The Citizens United case involved a televised "documentary" called Hillary: The Movie, which was ruled "electioneering material."[/QUOTE] They don't know about this. What they know about Citizens United is the surface-level "money in politics" aspect of it. Which shows that most of the shitposters in this thread saying "she's lying :downs:" didn't read the article. This is a great announcement. If she does get Congress to propose an amendment that means we can see which of our legislators want to keep the status quo or eliminate it. If she doesn't than it is incredibly easy to hold her accountable 4 years later during re-election.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50723869]You seriously think she would make such a public discussion about this, like this, if she were running at the behest of moneyed donors?[/QUOTE][I]Yes![/I] Absolutely yes, the public has an absurdly short memory until somebody makes some easy to regurgitate comparison to something we've all collectively forgotten. She can say all sorts of shit like this and if it gets her short-term gains she won't have to worry about long-term promises and especially if [I]somebody else[/I] cockblocks her "efforts." These sorts of legislative shenanigans are popular around the world, especially in countries where the government has been historically less than honest. I don't need to tell you about this though, I know you're well-read on history.

[QUOTE=rilez;50723935]It's not hard to believe that the candidate whose campaign is almost entirely funded by big money interests, might not take the issue of campaign finance reform seriously.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50723923]Hilary makes a promise and I'm supposed to believe her despite her record of not being truthful with promises? If I could I'd vote Hilary but that doesn't change my scepticism But nah go ahead quip at me[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=codemaster85;50723913]easy, spout about ending pacs, getting money from said pacs, and dont fulfill the wish after elected. its not that hard to understand.[/QUOTE] She's going after this topic herself. This isn't a scandal she's been put into the spotlight for. This isn't a major political issue that all candidates are discussion their policies about. This is her making it her own policy, making a public statement on her own accord that she's going to take this on. Can you seriously give any reason why she would bring up not just Citizens United ruling, but to make an amendment to end its affects and this somehow be the ploy of the "corporate donors holding her leash"? [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724027][I]Yes![/I] Absolutely yes, the public has an absurdly short memory until somebody makes some easy to regurgitate comparison to something we've all collectively forgotten. She can say all sorts of shit like this and if it gets her short-term gains she won't have to worry about long-term promises and especially if [I]somebody else[/I] cockblocks her "efforts." These sorts of legislative shenanigans are popular around the world, especially in countries where the government has been historically less than honest. I don't need to tell you about this though, I know you're well-read on history.[/QUOTE] This is bullshit. The public doesn't have short term memories. Why? Because all politicians refuse to let the people forget about the errors and mistakes of their opponents. She cannot just say she'll go after this and NOT expect Trump or whomever runs against her in 2020 to not bring this up.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50724027][I]Yes![/I] Absolutely yes, the public has an absurdly short memory until somebody makes some easy to regurgitate comparison to something we've all collectively forgotten. She can say all sorts of shit like this and if it gets her short-term gains she won't have to worry about long-term promises and especially if [I]somebody else[/I] cockblocks her "efforts." These sorts of legislative shenanigans are popular around the world, especially in countries where the government has been historically less than honest. I don't need to tell you about this though, I know you're well-read on history.[/QUOTE] The public definitely does have short-term memory loss, because they've already forgotten that Hillary was the more liberal candidate than Obama in 2008 and that she shared 93% of her Senate votes with Sanders. The mass amnesia that made America suddenly hate Clinton following the engineered-to-hurt-poll-numbers Benghazi investigations is hilarious. You can literally see her career-long high favorability ratings drop in... February 2015. Before that, not once was she more unfavorable than favorable. She was up to 70% favorable for a long time. The entire "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi" shit has been around for about a year. She's had a very favorable career until somehow right-wing Infowars conspiracy theories leaked into the left-wing.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724048]The public definitely does have short-term memory loss, because they've already forgotten that Hillary was the more liberal candidate than Obama in 2008 and that she shared 93% of her Senate votes with Sanders. The mass amnesia that made America suddenly hate Clinton following the engineered-to-hurt-poll-numbers Benghazi investigations is hilarious. You can literally see her career-long high favorability ratings drop in... February 2015. Before that, not once was she more unfavorable than favorable. She was up to 70% favorable for a long time. The entire "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi" shit has been around for about a year. She's had a very favorable career until somehow right-wing Infowars conspiracy theories leaked into the left-wing.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't believe "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi". It's great to be told I do, but I don't. I don't have super high trust in her, but I don't think that at all. I don't trust Trump to repeal it, or Clinton to, I'll be happily surprised when she does but does expressing honest skepticism because she's lied before, and she's a politician, and all politicians lie? Like it's hilarious, I've expressed that I would vote for her if I could, but my skepticism is somehow just me being brainwashed and too stupid to agree with all of you?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50724041]This isn't a scandal she's been put into the spotlight for. [B]This isn't a major political issue that all candidates are discussion their policies about. [/B]This is her making it her own policy, making a public statement on her own accord that she's going to take this on. Can you seriously give any reason why she would bring up not just Citizens United ruling, but to make an amendment to end its affects and this somehow be the ploy of the "corporate donors holding her leash"?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure she is about to finish a primary, after running against someone talking about this very issue. You don't think there is any chance she's saying these things just to rally as many voters as possible? Not a chance that the person who has benefited from this ruling in this election, might want to keep it around for her re-election? [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50724048]The entire "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi" shit has been around for about a year. She's had a very favorable career until somehow right-wing Infowars conspiracy theories leaked into the left-wing.[/QUOTE] Or maybe people just dislike her general dishonesty? Maybe she has other flaws beyond "Benghazi" and "email" buzzwords?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50724076]I honestly don't believe "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi". It's great to be told I do, but I don't. I don't have super high trust in her, but I don't think that at all. I don't trust Trump to repeal it, or Clinton to, I'll be happily surprised when she does but does expressing honest skepticism because she's lied before, and she's a politician, and all politicians lie? Like it's hilarious, I've expressed that I would vote for her if I could, but my skepticism is somehow just me being brainwashed and too stupid to agree with all of you?[/QUOTE] I wasn't saying you're brainwashed, that was more of a general comment towards the [I]incredibly[/I] sudden and bizarre hatred of Hillary that popped up in the last year or so. Plus I was replying to JumpinJackFlash, not you. Skepticism is great. I'm skeptical of a lot of Hillary's promises, too. I was skeptical of Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, and that was well-placed skepticism. Overturning Citizens United is one I'm [I]certain[/I] about, along with protecting net neutrality, because she's never [I]once[/I] made any implication that she's against them. Have some healthy skepticism - I'm somewhat skeptical about TPP, even though her record on trade deals suggests she won't be an idiot on TPP - but don't focus it on areas where the person you're talking about has been remarkably consistent. If you want to call Hillary inconsistent, go ahead, but don't start ragging on the consistent parts of her platform for being inconsistent. That's not being skeptical, it's being stubborn. [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=rilez;50724081] Or maybe people just dislike her general dishonesty? Maybe she has other flaws beyond "Benghazi" and "email" buzzwords?[/QUOTE] Hillary has loads of flaws. She has a long history of flaws. I'm not denying that. It's just weird to say "well she's lied before" and then point at one of her single most consistent platform policies. It doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724081]Pretty sure she is about to finish a primary, after running against someone talking about this very issue. You don't think there is any chance she's saying these things just to rally as many voters as possible? Not a chance that the person who has benefited from this ruling in this election, might want to keep it around for her re-election? [/QUOTE] Like this doesn't seem like a radical opinion, it's one I share, but why does it generate such hostility to think a politician will act as a politician?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724048]The public definitely does have short-term memory loss, because they've already forgotten that Hillary was the more liberal candidate than Obama in 2008 and that she shared 93% of her Senate votes with Sanders. The mass amnesia that made America suddenly hate Clinton following the engineered-to-hurt-poll-numbers Benghazi investigations is hilarious. You can literally see her career-long high favorability ratings drop in... February 2015. Before that, not once was she more unfavorable than favorable. She was up to 70% favorable for a long time. The entire "Hillary Clinton is a corporate slave who shot people in Benghazi" shit has been around for about a year. She's had a very favorable career until somehow right-wing Infowars conspiracy theories leaked into the left-wing.[/QUOTE] People began to pay more attention to what she actually does. She's a scummy liar who is running for president because she wants to be president, not because she wants to help the public. She is inconsistent and will bend over double for anyone with money.

[QUOTE=rilez;50724081]Pretty sure she is about to finish a primary, after running against someone talking about this very issue. You don't think there is any chance she's saying these things just to rally as many voters as possible?[/quote] Rally what voters? She's ahead in the polls and has an incredible chance to win, she has no need to promise something so extreme and different to gain more voters. [QUOTE=rilez;50724081]Not a chance that the person who has benefited from this ruling in this election, might want to keep it around for her re-election? [/QUOTE] They why the fuck go to such an extreme as to push for a constitutional amendment and not just some regular law? Amendments are pretty big fucking deal and really incredibly to push through.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50724090]I wasn't saying you're brainwashed, that was more of a general comment towards the [I]incredibly[/I] sudden and bizarre hatred of Hillary that popped up in the last year or so. Plus I was replying to JumpinJackFlash, not you. Skepticism is great. I'm skeptical of a lot of Hillary's promises, too. I was skeptical of Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, and that was well-placed skepticism. Overturning Citizens United is one I'm [I]certain[/I] about, along with protecting net neutrality, because she's never [I]once[/I] made any implication that she's against them. Have some healthy skepticism - I'm somewhat skeptical about TPP, even though her record on trade deals suggests she won't be an idiot on TPP - but don't focus it on areas where the person you're talking about has been remarkably consistent. If you want to call Hillary inconsistent, go ahead, but don't start ragging on the consistent parts of her platform for being inconsistent. That's not being skeptical, it's being stubborn. [editline]16th July 2016[/editline] Hillary has loads of flaws. She has a long history of flaws. I'm not denying that. It's just weird to say "well she's lied before" and then point at one of her single most consistent platform policies. It doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE] She benefits from it and that's a large part of the skepticism. I get there's stubbornness about her on the forum and I'm sure I've participated in it but a lot of that is generated from a genuine lack of faith in these people and there's only so much that can be overcome by discussion when it comes to topics like this where it comes down to faith in many ways.