Clinton supports constitutional amendment against money in politics

[bedstuy]

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.

Ugh, no.  Again, this makes strategic sense for Democrats. 

You're thinking about this incorrectly.  You think Hillary Clinton wants that unlimited money so she can pay for campaign commercials and bolster her insider power.  And, you're right.  Politicians need money to win, it's a fact of life.

But, there's something called comparative advantage.  Ultimately, you don't just want money to have it in your piggy bank.  You want campaign donations to win campaigns.  And, to that end, you want to have more campaign commercials, more staff, more yard signs, more online ads, more organization etc than the other side.  Which is more advantageous for candidate A?

Situation 1:
Candidate A: $100 million dollars
Candidate B: $95 million dollars

or

Situation 2:
Candidate A: $50 million dollars
Candidate B: $25 million dollars

Get it?

[© tweed]

Oh, the irony...

Yes, this. She's been in bed with special interests for years, so this is clearly a "I'm one of you middle class folk" move.

She voted for McCain-Feingold. Don't be a dumb.

Exactly.  This is the moderate hero fallacy.  Republicans have gone off the deep end and oppose all campaign finance regulation.  Democrats have not.

I actually support Chris Christie's plan relative to most Dem plans: unlimited donations, all of the info public and on the internet, as close to real time as is possible.  of course the corporations would slush the money through phony corporations, but we'd for the most part who's paying who.

or George Carlin's suggest: make the politicians wear suits full of the logos of the corporations that sponsor them, like NASCAR suits.  that's some sh**t I can get behind.

as for Hillary here: well done.  throw out a 'radical' solution that she literally would have no power to enact as president, and would not be enacted.  meanwhile she'll run a several billion dollar campaign.

[© tweed]

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.

citation needed.  Dems are fully a business party now, since Clinton.  back before then, they always ran at a financial disadvantage which was made up for with urban organization, often with the backing of labor. those days are gone now.  Hillary is as tight with Wall St as any Republican she'd face.  

Obama topped Romney in 2012, for example (and who could be tightest with Wall St than Mitt Romney?).  the GOP topped the Dems by a bit in 2014: but that made sense, they had more incumbents.  

the PAC and Super PAC thing makes it really hard to calculate all of this sh**t.  in total $7B was spent on the federal election cycle of 2012, only $3.2B of it by candidates.  I'll keep doing more digging and reading on how to understand the process and get the real numbers that matter

[© tweed]

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.

don't you get it?  the president is not involved in the process of amending the Constitution.  she washes her hands of the issue while sounding like a really good liberal and get reliable (D) voters like you to jerk your dick off.

"working within the contours of Citizen United, accepting it as settled law, and working with Congress to improve the campaign finance problem" a) sounds a lot less sexier, b) requires actual work on Hillary's part, and c) might actually have a chance of happening if prioritized.

use your brain dude.

[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.

citation needed.  Dems are fully a business party now, since Clinton.  back before then, they always ran at a financial disadvantage which was made up for with urban organization, often with the backing of labor. those days are gone now.  Hillary is as tight with Wall St as any Republican she'd face.  

Obama topped Romney in 2012, for example (and who could be tightest with Wall St than Mitt Romney?).  the GOP topped the Dems by a bit in 2014: but that made sense, they had more incumbents.  

the PAC and Super PAC thing makes it really hard to calculate all of this sh**t.  in total $7B was spent on the federal election cycle of 2012, only $3.2B of it by candidates.  I'll keep doing more digging and reading on how to understand the process and get the real numbers that matter

No, Romney raised more than Obama, if you look at the full picture.  Obama's candidate committee raised more, which makes sense as he was an incumbent President, sure.  But, look at total spending, which includes said Super PACs.

2012 Spending: 
Obama: $1.1 billion
Romney: $1.2 billion

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

And, again, comparative advantage.  There are more rich Republicans than rich Democrats.  There may be outlier candidates who are great fundraisers like Obama and Clinton, but clearly, Super PACs hurt Democrats and would hurt Hillary Clinton's political agenda. 

[IceSpear]

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.

don't you get it?  the president is not involved in the process of amending the Constitution.  she washes her hands of the issue while sounding like a really good liberal and get reliable (D) voters like you to jerk your dick off.

"working within the contours of Citizen United, accepting it as settled law, and working with Congress to improve the campaign finance problem" a) sounds a lot less sexier, b) requires actual work on Hillary's part, and c) might actually have a chance of happening if prioritized.

use your brain dude.

LOL. So first you guys criticize Hillary for "not being left wing enough", now you criticize her for being "so left wing it's unrealistic."

So which is it? Does Hillary need to be a left wing crusader or a pragmatic progressive?

[© tweed]

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.

don't you get it?  the president is not involved in the process of amending the Constitution.  she washes her hands of the issue while sounding like a really good liberal and get reliable (D) voters like you to jerk your dick off.

"working within the contours of Citizen United, accepting it as settled law, and working with Congress to improve the campaign finance problem" a) sounds a lot less sexier, b) requires actual work on Hillary's part, and c) might actually have a chance of happening if prioritized.

use your brain dude.

LOL. So first you guys criticize Hillary for "not being left wing enough", now you criticize her for being "so left wing it's unrealistic."

So which is it? Does Hillary need to be a left wing crusader or a pragmatic progressive?

first of all, you're talking like a Dem campaign operative.  it's annoying and it's a bad habit to get into.  it eats at your brain in an Orwellian way.

as for "Hillary supports a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens' United": it's pragmatic from a campaigning perspective, and irrelevant from a policy perspective.


above all, here in mid-April 2015, Hillary wants to look like she's all for addressing this problem.  the Amendment endorsement is brilliant: the Amendment process does not involve the president.  meanwhile it sounds a lot better than "I'll haggle with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell when the time comes, we'll see, Citizens United is settled law", although from a policy perspective, the latter is better representative of what Hillary would be capable of doing as president.

though, no doubt, if an anti-Citizens United Amendment had passed through 30-some odd state legislatures, she'd jump on the bandwagon, but don't expect her to raise a finger at that level before then.  it's not her job, after all.

[Lief 🗽]

Look at the end of the day, the only way that we're getting citizens united et al. overturned is by waiting until Scalia or Kennedy (or, inshallah, Thomas) die and then replacing them with a liberal justice. Of course Clinton can't come out and say that. A constitutional amendment is obviously never happening, and legislation can't really fix the problem. I don't know why progressive activists waste their time on constitutional amendments that are literally never going to pass, but they do, and instead of being asked the question "will you appoint a 50-something lesbian judge who clerked for ginsburg if/when scalia has a heart attack" people ask her this nonsense, so she answers the questions she's asked and hopes people understand her position.

[ChainsawJedis]

I can't agree with the notion suggested by others that just because someone comes from wealth. The Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's for example both supported programs for the poor. Be cynical about those two families if you like, but the fact is you can have money and still sympathetic to those who don't. Clinton herself doesn't even come really from old money in the way those two families do. I can never understand someone making a career for themselves and then being demonized for being aristocratic.

Back on the issue, to me campaign finance is one of the worst things about the political system. It is in need for serious reform and if Hillary were t actually make it a major part of her platform and tried to bring about serious change that would be incredible.

[© tweed]

Look at the end of the day, the only way that we're getting citizens united et al. overturned is by waiting until Scalia or Kennedy (or, inshallah, Thomas) die and then replacing them with a liberal justice. Of course Clinton can't come out and say that. A constitutional amendment is obviously never happening, and legislation can't really fix the problem.

so if Hillary were honest, she could say "with the current construction of the Court, overturning Citizens United is not a possiblity.  we must accept it as settled law -- yet I believe there may yet be room for improvements to campaign finance law".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

they don't know what to do.  that's the petit-bourgeois reformist left.  it is nationally disjointed, has no clear direction, and often does things that look like wasting time.  but at least it is a form of movement-building -- perhaps one day, the tides change.  it can happen fast.

btw, the best aspect of the petit-bourgeois, reformist left is the linking up of credit unions w/cooperative industry.  such industries are still subject to market discipline, the orthodox Marxist is quick to point out, but those are the kind of direct-action, building the new society within the old one that make the most sense to me.  Gar Alperovitz or more or less the guru emeritus of the movement.



Chris Hedges likes to tell the story of the few dozen Lutherans that held a candle procession at the Berlin Wall in 1988-9, officially in protest of their lack of recognition by the GDR government.  they told him that they hoped within a year or two, more would join and their movement would gain strength.  literally within a week of that conversation the Wall was officially opened up and the candle-lighting Lutherans achieved their wish.

sometimes, it's just about keeping the flame going.  if you want to vote for HRC in a general election, have fun, but Good Lord, don't get all excited about it.