Clinton supports constitutional amendment against money in politics

[Free Bird]

Credit where credit is due

[Ebsy]

FDR was wealthy. I don't care if it's Bill Gates, if he/she is taking the positions I favor, then I'm going to be for that. My bigger concern is that if it takes a constitutional amendment, it would only happen if a significant number of Republicans agree that it's needed. Perhaps if we remember that it'd also restrict the donations of Democratic billionaires like George Soros?

I think all Americans would be better off if Tom Steyer and George Soros didn't automatically have the ear of every Democratic congressman.

[Sumner 1868]

Apparently Warren requested a lot more solid concessions then I had initially thought.

[Ebsy]

Apparently Warren requested a lot more solid concessions then I had initially thought.

Or maybe, gasp, Warren and Clinton aren't actually that far apart on policy, weren't to begin with, and the whole narrative that Hillary Clinton is some neoliberal Wall Street Democrat was fabricated so that the media would have something to talk about.

[Sumner 1868]

Apparently Warren requested a lot more solid concessions then I had initially thought.

Or maybe, gasp, Warren and Clinton aren't actually that far apart on policy, weren't to begin with, and the whole narrative that Hillary Clinton is some neoliberal Wall Street Democrat was fabricated so that the media would have something to talk about.

I've never heard the corporate media call Hillary (or even Bill, for that matter) a neoliberal Wall Street Democrat. Those are grassroots charges.

[Ebsy]

I didn't say they hated her, but a nascent primary challenge from the left "grass roots" (which since the Tea Party movement, I am skeptical of) is a better story than most Democrats supporting a Clinton nomination and that really, Clinton's positions are fairly consistent with most liberals in the party.

[Samantha]

it's easy to support things knowing that they'll never actually happen and therefore will never apply to you.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't know what the point of this forum is if you people are just going to parrot youtube-comment-level nonsense. Clinton has been a support of campaign finance reform for a very long time, just like basically every other Democrat. She voted for McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United (among other decisions) struck down. In fact the subject of that case was ads attacking her! This is not shocking or surprising or hypocritical.

[King]

I don't know what the point of this forum is if you people are just going to parrot youtube-comment-level nonsense. Clinton has been a support of campaign finance reform for a very long time, just like basically every other Democrat. She voted for McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United (among other decisions) struck down. In fact the subject of that case was ads attacking her! This is not shocking or surprising or hypocritical.

It's become clear that for as many people know of Hillary Clinton, very few, even politically active Americans, know who she is.

[Sumner 1868]

I don't know what the point of this forum is if you people are just going to parrot youtube-comment-level nonsense. Clinton has been a support of campaign finance reform for a very long time, just like basically every other Democrat. She voted for McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United (among other decisions) struck down. In fact the subject of that case was ads attacking her! This is not shocking or surprising or hypocritical.

I think what's surprising to people is that she supports an outright amendment, whereas in the past she merely advocated the token "reforms" that did nothing.

[King]

I don't know what the point of this forum is if you people are just going to parrot youtube-comment-level nonsense. Clinton has been a support of campaign finance reform for a very long time, just like basically every other Democrat. She voted for McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United (among other decisions) struck down. In fact the subject of that case was ads attacking her! This is not shocking or surprising or hypocritical.

I think what's surprising to people is that she supports an outright amendment, whereas in the past she merely advocated the token "reforms" that did nothing.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/09/hillary-clinton-knocks-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-decisions/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Elizabeth Warren had given those quotes, there'd be a line around the block to kiss her feet.

[Sumner 1868]

I don't know what the point of this forum is if you people are just going to parrot youtube-comment-level nonsense. Clinton has been a support of campaign finance reform for a very long time, just like basically every other Democrat. She voted for McCain-Feingold, which Citizens United (among other decisions) struck down. In fact the subject of that case was ads attacking her! This is not shocking or surprising or hypocritical.

I think what's surprising to people is that she supports an outright amendment, whereas in the past she merely advocated the token "reforms" that did nothing.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/09/hillary-clinton-knocks-supreme-courts-campaign-finance-decisions/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Elizabeth Warren had given those quotes, there'd be a line around the block to kiss her feet.

Thank you for the quotes. Although, it should be noted they are fairly recent.

It's quite clear she is attempting to replicate the populist tone that elected her husband in 1992. This is perfectly understandable, given the falling standard of living, and I welcome it, but people are bound to question it's sincerity because of her past.

[King]

sincerity because of her past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Government_Reform

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sumner 1868]

sincerity because of her past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Government_Reform

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of these are just public statements.

[King]

sincerity because of her past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Government_Reform

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of these are just public statements.

No, she was also a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold. She's never proposed a constitutional amendment against Citizens United like Bernie Sanders has, but that's just pure semantics. She was in the Senate when campaign finance reform was constitutional.

[Likely Voter]

The call for campaign finance constitutional amendment was part of the 2012 Democratic Party platform. It is popular with the base. She really couldn't be against it. But it is interesting that she made it a prominent  part of her four principles, wrapped into 'fixing a broken political system'. I suspect it focus groups well

[Sumner 1868]

sincerity because of her past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm#Government_Reform

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most of these are just public statements.

No, she was also a co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold. She's never proposed a constitutional amendment against Citizens United like Bernie Sanders has, but that's just pure semantics. She was in the Senate when campaign finance reform was constitutional.

It's not really any one issue that inspires the mistrust many progressives have for her so much as a series of things (the same reason why so many have abandoned Obama).

[IceSpear]

It's quite clear she is attempting to replicate the populist tone that elected her husband in 1992. This is perfectly understandable, given the falling standard of living, and I welcome it, but people are bound to question it's sincerity because of her past.

Her past as in her liberal Senate voting record? Or her past as in pushing for healthcare reform/being a fierce women's rights advocate as First Lady?

[NeverAgain]

Hillary will only use the money for good. Obviously. She and IceSpear will go to the Caymans for a well worth vacation after their large victory in scamming, I mean getting elected President.

[Lincoln Republican]

Good luck convincing billion dollar spending Dems to support this populist yet completely unworkable and unrealistic piece of Dem propaganda.

[Maxwell]

She'll forget about it as soon as she's in office. Bet on it, gentlemen.

[NeverAgain]

She'll forget about it as soon as she's in office. Bet on it, gentlemen.

I will bet you 2.5 billion dollars. Or how ever much hills raises.

[bedstuy]

She'll forget about it as soon as she's in office. Bet on it, gentlemen.

Why do you say that?  The post-Citizens United changes to campaign finance law hurt Democrats way more than Republicans.  So, it's in her self interest to get Citizens United reversed, and for that matter Buckley v. Valeo. 

Do you think Hillary Clinton is going to appoint right-wing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, if she gets a chance?  Do you think Hillary Clinton would veto McCain-Feingold-like campaign finance reform that almost every single other Democrat supports?  There is no evidence for that whatsoever and none of you people have given any reasons why.  The only thing you can muster is "Hillary is bad so she must have positions I disagree with."   

Now, what is standing in her way to getting an amendment passed?  Republicans!  That's the problem here.  I know we're supposed to live in a fantasy world where Democrats and Republicans are the same.  But, this issue is crystal clear.  If you support, campaign finance reform, you side with Hillary Clinton, not the Republicans. 

[IceSpear]

She'll forget about it as soon as she's in office. Bet on it, gentlemen.

Rand would surely maintain his principles in office though.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Anything good that comes out of her mouth (and of course, any progressive policy she implements as president) was and will be forced out by progressive and labor activists--the same as happened with Roosevelt and Johnson and Obama. There's no way she'd be advocating this if not for the post-Citizens United activism against money in politics.