The Real Reason Hillary Clinton Wants To Overturn 'Citizens United'

Hillary Clinton’s stumbling campaign for the White House is geared to take advantage of voter ignorance at every turn: ignorance about the government’s ability to promote prosperity, ignorance about the impact of minimum wage laws, ignorance about the damage done by her policies while serving as Secretary of State, and – the point of this piece – ignorance about the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Leftist politicians from Barack Obama down have created a mythology that Citizens United was a disastrous decision because it allows big, rich, right-wing corporations to buy our elections. Hillary Clinton declares that if elected president, she would make it a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees that they be willing to overrule it. Moreover, leaving no stone unturned, she favors a constitutional amendment that would allow the federal government to do what the Court said it could not do in Citizens United – control free speech in political campaigns.

The case arose because a non-profit corporation produced and sought to air a documentary named Hillary: The Movie that was highly critical of Hillary Clinton while she was seeking the Democratic nomination. The Federal Election Commission blocked its release, on the grounds that the movie violated the rules regarding “electioneering communications” in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), so Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC’s action.

Now, had some group produced and aired a film that fawned over the greatness of Hillary, there almost certainly would never have been any case. Because the movie criticized an important leftist politician, however, the FEC felt obliged to weigh in.

“Hillary Clinton’s stumbling campaign for the White House is geared to take advantage of voter ignorance at every turn”....

That goal has been the main plan of the demodummie party for many, many years, saturate the population with takers, “gimmedats” and every free loader that comes along and sucks on the tit of government giveaways. You keep the hoards fed, fat, dumb and dependent, they will vote you in forever. Why do you think all these illegals have been so welcome by odumbo a company? They are parasites on this country and unfortunately, they vote.

Citizens United is no friend to Conservatives. It has enabled the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove, and other power brokers in the GOPe to raise unlimited cash to maintain power. This is the contention of Sundance at Conservative Treehouse, and as I have pondered it I agree.

We should hope that at this very minute, people – in unions, in corporations, in any kind of organization – are busily working on more advocacy movies: Hillary: The Movie II; The Donald: The Movie; Bernie: The Movie; Carly: The Movie, and so on. They should be free to make and show them without restrictions – such speech is at the very heart of the First Amendment.

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as

Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.

The fallacy of ~~Campaign Finance Reform~~ censorship is that everyone understands that it cannot apply to newspapers. And all CFR does is to proclaim that the membership of the AP (de facto if not de jure) is 100% of the press, and nobody who is not in the AP has freedom of the press.
And yet everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that journalism as we know it - wire service journalism - is not objective. That would be fine in a competitive journalism market, but the wire services - the AP and others - have homogenized and unified journalism so that there is no effective ideological competition within, or among, the wire services. Suppressing competition with/among journalists is what CFR is about; it is precisely what we do not need.

Article 1 Section 8.:
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
Logically, the radio, TV, and Internet are not novel to the Constitution but have been called into existence by the Constitution. They represent “progress of . . . [the] useful art" of the printing press. Thus even without appeal to the Ninth Amendment, protection of the right to make political movies or other argumentation is squarely within the bounds of the First Amendment.
The conclusion is that were I on SCOTUS not that that is going to happen - My opinion in Citizens United would be a concurrence, pointing out that the core mission of the FEC is to violate the First Amendment. And calling for its abolition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.