[Cincinatus' Wife]

Citizens United v. FEC

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office."....

Sept 2015: Hillary Clinton Releases Broad Campaign Finance Reform Plan

"WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will roll out a full plan this week detailing how she would work to stem the influence of big money in politics.

The plan goes far beyond Clinton's already stated support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. That ruling opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations, unions and -- following a subsequent lower court ruling -- wealthy individuals spending on elections.

Clinton's embrace of a broad reform platform comes as she faces a challenge from her closest competitor, the socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose campaign is largely predicated on addressing income inequality and the role that money in politics plays to perpetuate it. At the same time, campaign finance reform groups have been publicly pressuring candidates to lay out reform plans beyond support for a difficult-to-attain constitutional amendment."....

Jan 17, 2016: Hillary Clinton: 'I Know How Much Money Influences the Political Decision-Making'

********************

I guess it's okay if it's "your money."

Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, together again on the issues.

[cripplecreek]

Bernie Sanders values.

[TBBT]

Constitution you say? What 1st amendment? Phhhhhh!

Yes. The Donald is a “true conservative.” Big Government will be fabulous when it’s wielded by the Donald. It will be great. GREAT I tell ya! Making America Great Again! YARRRRGGGGGHHH!

By the way, did you know that he is leading in the polls?

[sphinx]

I truly wonder if Donald is even dimly aware of either the free speech issues involved or the political implications of reinforcing the media as the gatekeepers of all discussion.

Does he have the slightest notion of what he is saying, or is he just (again) chasing a cheap applause line?

[BlueStateRightist]

New York Republican. Your head is in the sand if you don’t know what that means.

[Nifster]

Your TDS is getting boring.

Trump is self funding. His comments are reasonable in terms of monies effect on a candidate.

K street is why DC never changes only gets worse.

That someone is open to change does not mean they are advocating for a particular position

[C. Edmund Wright]

Big powerful government is great, as long as Trump is running it.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Trump-Obama on the First Amendment.....NY values we can trust.

[patq]

Trump is not saying he would end PACs (and union donations) but rather reform it. Enforce existing laws such as no coordination between PAC and campaigns. And if they want free speech, make it truly free where donors names and amounts are identified. Why would they want to stay anonymous if they believe in their cause so greatly? Are they looking for future payback and want to keep it a secret? Why hide...like Ted apparently hide his Goldman Sachs “loan”? Transparency, people.

[montag813]

Conservative Treehouse has an excellent piece in which they lay out how the GOPe has used Citizens United to crush conservative opponents in 2012 and 2014. WE are their enemy, NOT the Democrats.

[RasterMaster]

King of cronyism is also open to bribing politicians to obtain policies that provide financial gain.

[sitetest]

Why not? Liberals are generally in favor of the First Amendment abridgments of basic rights comprising campaign finance “reform.” And it sure is a great idea for liberal billionaires who want to run for office: it reduces the competition dramatically.

Billionaires for President! Oligarchy forever!

Now, let me get my tongue out of my cheek.

[conservativesister]

And which way does your boy fly?
First headline that came up when I Googled the LAWYER Cruz.

“As a Lawyer, Ted Cruz Defended Huge Jury Awards. As a Politician, He Opposed Them.”

Go ahead tear apart everyone reading FR all you are doing is pissing everyone off!

[almcbean]

“I really like Kelo but don’t like Citizen’s United. I also accept Obergefell and Roe.

But I’m a conservative, trust me.”

[major-pelham]

We should flush this one out - it’s an important point. I totally agree with Citizens United - totally. On the other hand it has the unintended consequences of massive PAC donors that own the candidates with a wink and a nod - a separate PAC that isn’t really separate - like Newt and Adelson. You got any answers?

[norwaypinesavage]

The true Trump - the solution to our problems? More government regulations.

[vmivol00]

We need term limits. Trump might be the guy to push for that.

[bert]

I think you posted a lie.

what was the venue?

Trump is a real man that gets around. He doesn’t hide under a rock

[Girlene]

There's a reason our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, are actively working against us in the open as of late....Citizen United. The Inside Story Of How Citizens United Has Changed Washington Lawmaking

The Chamber of Commerce essentially gets whatever it wants.

[P-Marlowe]

DONALD TRUMP: "THE ART OF PAY TO PLAY"

[csvset]