Citizens United

Hillary Clinton Says Letting Activists Criticize Her 'Hollowed Out' Our Democracy

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee thinks more speech makes elections less competitive.


Citizens United

Yesterday Hillary Clinton marked the sixth anniversary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a CNN essay reiterating her determination to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which lifted legal restrictions on political speech by unions and corporations. Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says Citizens United "transformed our politics by allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections." She does not mention that the corporations include nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum. In fact, she does not mention freedom of speech or the First Amendment at all, although she does claim that Citizens United "change[d] whose voices count in our democracy." Nor does Clinton mention that speech critical of her was at the center of the case, perhaps because it would be unseemly to say the Supreme Court should have allowed the FEC to suppress a movie that made her look bad—rather like Donald Trump praising Kelo v. New London, which allowed rich developers like him to acquire land they covet by using the government's eminent domain power.

Clinton's counterintuitive thesis is that allowing more campaign-related speech has made elections less competitive. She presents no real evidence to back up that claim, simply asserting that Republicans would not have done as well as they did in the elections that followed Citizens United if the Supreme Court had not rejected censorship of Hillary: The Movie. As Scott Shackford noted yesterday, there are more than a few examples of anti-establishment or otherwise marginal candidates who have been aided by independent spending, which seems to make elections more rather than less competitive. If Clinton had counterexamples of challengers who were stymied by sinister "outside groups," you'd think she would have mentioned one or two. 

Instead Clinton complains that in 2014 "the top 100 donors spent nearly as much as all 4.75 million small donors combined." Does that mean Republicans are winning because they are outspending Democrats, or that "our democracy is being hollowed out," as Clinton claims? Not really. The Politico story to which she links, which analyzes contributions to candidates, parties, PACs, super PACs, and 527 groups, notes that "donors who gave exclusively or primarily to Democratic candidates and groups held down 52 of the top 100 spots—including by far the biggest donor of disclosed 2014 cash: retired San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer."

Politico also notes that spending a lot of money does not ensure victory. Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC "spent $10.6 million from a mix of micro- and mega-donors on a quixotic crusade to elect congressional candidates who it hoped would support policies that empower mom and pop contributors." The organization "suffered embarrassing disappointment in 2014, winning only two out of eight races in which it played." Steyer, the No. 1 donor in 2014, did not do so well either:

Steyer spent the majority of his political cash—$66.9 million—through a super PAC he created and funded to pursue his main issue: elevating climate change in the political debate. Yet the PAC, NextGen Climate Action, won only three of the seven races in which it spent cash, prompting grumbling from ostensible allies that he may have overestimated voters'—and his fellow liberal donors'—interest in the issue, and that he misspent his cash on sometimes bizarre ads accusing Republican candidates of being beholden to Big Oil and challenging the Koch brothers, whose multinational industrial conglomerate includes a substantial fossil fuel portfolio, to a debate on climate change.

In fact, "plenty of wealthy donors in recent years have gotten questionable returns on their donations," including supporters of  "GOP-allied super PACs like Karl Rove's American Crossroads." So maybe money can't buy you love after all.

Since "only 0.28 percent of American adults donate to campaigns," the focus on big vs. small donors seems misconceived. If the health of our democracy were Clinton's real concern, she would ask about the diversity of viewpoints presented in elections and the ability of newcomers to challenge incumbents. Greater freedom of speech can only improve both. 

NEXT: Movie Review: The 5th Wave

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can’t remember who said it here, but the only rejoinder is this:

    Whenever somebody bashes Citizens United, I always ask them, “Should the government have the power to ban political books and films?” Because that’s exactly what the case was about and what the Solicitor General argued in front of the Court.

    1. In this case, I’m satisfied with the rejoinder, “Fuck you, Hillary.”

    2. Don’t be surprised when some “I’m for free speech, but…” type answers in the affirmative.

      1. Or says that they don’t know the exact details of the Citizens United case, but they *do* know they’re against corporate spending on elections.

      2. Isn’t that the same as “I’m all for gun ownership but….” and the other “You can keep your doctor…”

      3. Oh but,… “we’ve already made common sense restrictions on 1A, you can’t yell fire in a movie theater can you?”

        Then there’s; “the Constitution didn’t give us rights so we can,…”

        We’re dealing with a functional cognitive dissonance, or as is often the case, ignorance. Many, if not most people not only don’t grasp what inalienable rights are, but, they completely misunderstand the entire purpose of the BoR.

        1. No, we’re dealing with functional retards.

          1. Functionally, yes. Otherwise intelligent people who never learned to think critically.

          2. Sadly, it cannot all be put down to stupidity.

            1. Functionally stupid though? People who are products of activist public edumakashen.

              1. I don’t think you can put it on public education either. Have you ever met people from private schools? Many of them (the fancy ones at least) are as bad as colleges. Most people just don’t get past what sounds and feels good and fair to them.

                1. Progressive teaching is a problem whether the school is public or private. However, with private schools you, as a parent, can select not to be involved with progressive teachers.

        2. “Oh but,… ‘we’ve already made common sense restrictions on 1A, you can’t yell fire in a movie theater can you?'”

          Always fun to follow that up with “Oh, so you don’t think people should be able to voice their opinions against the draft??” because that is the exact case where the “fire in a movie theater” argument was first used to justify shutting someone up.

          1. I usually reply that, that has as much to do with 1A as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Apples and Sherman tanks.

      4. I’m for free speech but and fuck you, Hillary.

        1. Please don’t put Hillary and “but fuck” so close to one another.

          1. Well to be fair, she’s wearing the strap on and your the one bent over, essentially making her no different than most other politicians.

            1. *you’re

              Damn. I’ll get the hang of the English language one day, I swear.

      5. The simple fact is that the “but brigade” does not believe in free speech.

    3. “Should the government have the power to ban political books and films?”

      All depends on which TEAM benefits. If their TEAM benefits, then of course such intolerant messages must be banned. If it harms their TEAM, then of course the 1A is immutable. Principals, not principles.

    4. Jordan said that yesterday. And he could not have said it better.

      1. RIGHT!!! That’s who it was!!

    5. You know what they say about shouting “fire!” in crowded movie theaters?


  2. I guess I understand why the wealthy and connected would want to buy further influence, but why in Galt’s name would anyone who isn’t independently wealthy flush their money down a toilet like a political campaign?

    1. Because they really hate the Keystone pipeline?

      1. The Keystone Pipeline is not a good argument against being against Citizen’s United, it’s exactly what we’re talking about. The Koch brothers right now own a railroad that handles a lot of the oil coming out of the area and they stand to lose a ton of money if Keystone gets built. So the Koch brothers have a lot of dirty money secretly being spent to lobby against the pipeline. Those bastards are so evil and so greedy that they say they oppose the pipeline on environmental grounds, but their railroad shipping all that oil is even dirtier and more dangerous than the pipeline. You may occasionally – if you’re paying attention – see a news article about a train derailment involving tanker cars loaded with oil and what a disaster that creates, but you will never see a mention in the article that the railroad in question is owned by the Koch brothers and the fact that the oil train even exists solely because the Koch brothers oppose the Keystone Pipeline. Hell, just Google “Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation” and you won’t even see a mention in the Wikipedia article that the Koch brothers own the railroad – that’s just how powerful their dark money is.

        1. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway – aka Warren Buffet

          1. ::runs to post office FedEx store::

            ::mails sends sarcasmometer battery pack to Goldwater::

          2. That’s Jerryskids’ point: The Koch brothers’ dark money is so powerful that it can keep their ownership out of Wikipedia articles and even SEC filings, whereas Warren Buffet — the world’s richest man and buddy of both Clintons and Obamas — must report his profiteering from the absence of the Keystone pipeline.

            IOW, it’s sarcasm.

    2. wealthy people are smart enough to spend other peoples money. thats why I don’t trust Trump A smart man would never spend his own money on a campaign. although in his case he may be just looking for the tax right off and he’s elected thats just a bonus to him.

  3. So democracy resembles the space between her ears?

  4. My bosses gave $15M to the pro-Cruz “Keep The Promise” PAC. I wonder if Hillary would think they were hollowing out democracy if they had instead given it to her and Bill’s slush fund.

  5. The very existence of Sanders and Trump is all that is needed to shut down liberal critics of Citizens United.

    1. ^^^ This ^^^.

    2. No it does not. A lot of these people are simply offended by the idea that corporations have rights, as if they were legal golems running amok instead of organizations of people. It is based on some irrational fears and a huge amount of cognitive dissonance.

      1. I’m going to have to co-opt the phrase “legal golems running amok” for my future discussions, because that was a really apt description of the tone of voice used by anti-corporate activists.

  6. Next up: Clinton essay on how anti-third-party ballot access laws hollow out our democracy.

    Ha Ha! just kidding.

  7. The only possible explanation for a Democrat losing an election is feeble-minded voters being brainwashed by corporate entities that support Republicans. Democrat politicians view the people with utter contempt. They’re all morons who need to be ruled by benevolent Democrats, and they’d know this if they weren’t continually duped by the KKKoch brothers and their Big Money friends.

    1. I’ll give it a B+. Need a climate change tie in to get over the hump.

      1. It also needs something about the evil NRA/gun lobby to get that A+ derp.

  8. Since they’re the reality-based community, they’ll listen to what reality tells them, right? Right?

    1. That was supposed to be in response to colorblindkid.

  9. I just don’t understand these people and their talk of repealing Citizen’s United. The Supreme Court, the highest authority in the land, has the final word on what is and is not the Law Of The Land and questioning their authority on this issue is nothing less than un-American Constitution bashing. Do you people even read the Constitution? Know what the Constitution says? The Supreme Court has spoken and this is Settled Law. So shut the hell up and move on already! No matter how much you/i may object to gay people having the right to get married just like everybody else, Citizen’s United ain’t going away.

    1. It’s only settled when they get their way.

      1. Oh wait, Citizen’s United isn’t the gay-marriage one, the good one? My mistake, nevermind.

        1. Citizen’s United is the one where the corporations bribed the conservative judges into supporting their evil cause.

    2. Their total lack of integrity and complete double standards would be funny if they were not so dangerous. If anyone ever talked about overturning the gay marriage decision they would fall on the floor fainting over the attack on the majesty of the law and the credibility of the court. But it is everyone’s sacred duty to Democracy to ignore and help to overturn Citizens United and Heller.

      1. Double standards are the greatest threat to standards.

        1. If one standard is so great, why isn’t two better, huh?

          QED BITCH!

          1. Did somebody say, “QE”?

            /Janet Yellen

    3. Jim Crow was upheld by the SC. So was Korematsu. Fortunately one of those was eventually reversed by a more civilized court. The other should be, however I doubt anybody will ever have standing to challenge it

      The CU ruling is consistent with the founding principles, so it shouldn’t ever face the possibility of being “overturned” by a later court unless it is completely partisan…which means the odds are about 50/50 at some later date.

      1. Odds are certain if Hillary or Bernie gets elected since they will appoint at least one justice to SCOTUS.

        1. ^This. This is the greatest danger.

          I will forever be grateful to Ginsberg for sticking around long enough to keep Obumbles from the opportunity to appoint another SC Justice.

  10. But don’t you people understand? It’s only okay when Michael Moore does it!

  11. That major med outlets can mention Citizens United in the context of Hillary’s campaign, and not mention that the case specifically addressed a movie critical of Clinton so her campaigning against CU is, more than any other person, self-serving, should be considered an in-kind contribution to her campaign.

  12. Corporations are people the way cake is flour and eggs and sugar. “Corporations are people” doesn’t mean the Acme Korporation has arms and legs and eyes and a mouth, it means “Acme Korporation” is the name we give to a specific group of people. If I have the right to free speech and you have the right to free speech and he and she have the right to free speech, how is it that if we all get together and call ourselves the Acme Korporation, we no longer have the right to free speech? I can’t afford to buy a newspaper ad and express my opinion and neither can you and neither can he or she, but if we all put our money together we can afford a newspaper ad. Is that wrong? Can we not put our money together so we can collectively have our voices heard in a way none of us individually can? And why is it I hear so much criticism of the Acme Korporation doing the exact same thing the New York Times corporation has been doing since time immemorial?

    1. You see, this is the sort of subversion that gets published when we don’t have common-sense speech control.

    2. You wrote a bunch of stuff that I didn’t bother to read but CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!

    3. Their rhetoric says that a corporation should have no rights whatsoever. Which implies that your corporate holdings should not be secure as property, should be subject to search on the government’s whim* along with any other thing you can think of.

      They have absolutely no understanding of how far reaching the legal implications of their corporation phobia actually is.

      *That is a real doozy if you think your transactions between your cell phone and internet provider should be subject to a warrant.

    4. I’ve tried to square this circle many times and I just can’t. Corporations are not people, period. Personifying a legal fiction and assigning it inalienable rights is absurd and completely antithetical to a classical liberal perspective. The same “class” assignments used by socialists, and any other anti-liberty tyrant types, to create legal/political fictions of groups to justify subjugating the individual, are present in this argument (assigning rights to groups not people!). In no way does not giving a corporation rights, encumber an individual’s rights. The individuals making up any association/corporation/clan/coven (or whatever group they choose to freely associate with) still have their rights in effect and can exercise them freely as part of any group. I completely agree that a corporation, being an assembly of people, can freely express themselves as they see fit, and donate as they see fit. But let us not justify it by using an argument that is antisocial and tyrannical, simply because the same ends are sought.

      1. If a corporation, as an assembly of people, can speak freely as the owners are fit, then saying it has I alienable rights is not absurd. A Corporation has rights as an extension of the person so to ghost rd of the owners or it does not. Getting put out because you do not like the semantics is problem.

        1. Indeed. Corporations have inalienable rights because their owners have inalienable rights, denying those rights is to deny the owners’ own. And that’s the difference between corporations-as-people and the class assignments: the owners of a corp choose to delegate those rights, whereas the class-obsessed simply attempt to usurp the rights of individuals based on whatever arbitrary criteria defines they deem fit.

          A corporation is entitled to exercise whatever rights its constituents choose to delegate to it. A for-rpofit corporation is nothing but a vehicle for a group of individuals to exercise each one’s right to property, a right which the corporation exercises in its own name and for its own reasons. Likewise, these activist corporations exist as a vehicle for a groups of individuals to exercise their right to speech, and infringing on that right for any reason is equivalent to infringing on the rights of the individuals themselves.

          1. First, please revisit your definition of inalienable as it applies to natural rights and corporations. I believe you will see the logical error. A corporation is an abstraction and a legal fiction used for convenience in business and legal matters. Therefore they have no natural inalienable rights, as they are not natural persons. Have you ever seen a corporation? Has a corporation ever assaulted you? Stolen from you? Have you ever made a voluntary exchange with a corporation? NO! Individuals take action; action and decision are innate and necessarily define being human. Mises in “Human Action” and Rothbard in “Man, Economy, and State” go to extreme lengths to elucidate this point. People can freely associate, and can exercise their rights, including free speech (for the purpose of this discussion of CU v FEC) so long as they do not aggress upon another’s rights. So I agree with the result, that the individuals aggregated in the form of CU can put out a political movie of their choosing, but I cannot agree with the statement that the corporation has rights. No more than “society” (another abstraction of aggregated individuals) has rights! Every well intended tyrant has used similar arguments for justifying their aggression.

        2. Semantics is VERY important, especially in legal or contractual contexts. So yes, I do not like the semantics!

  13. “…If the health of our democracy were Clinton’s real concern,…”

    …she’d go looking for a fire to die in.

  14. I love posting this – the Certificate of Incorporation of the New York Times Company.

    Talk about rich corporations trying to influence elections!

  15. I find the left’s obsession with Citizen’s United interesting, since the decision doesn’t seem to have benefited one ideology over the other. I suspect the opposition on the left can be broken into two camps.

    First, there are the true believers. I don’t think their argument is so much that all the money guarantees that a candidate will win, but rather that when some candidate does win, they are more beholden to a small number of large donors than they otherwise would be. In that sense, donors are making a risky investment (because victory is uncertain) but one that has a potentially big payoff. That actually sounds plausible to me. Whether it actually represents some big shift in the way our government works is a different question — we have never had the idealized democracy that the left fetishizes.

    Then there are people like Hillary, who I suspect oppose Citizen’s United because it makes it easier for an upstart with connections to deep pockets to challenge the establishment candidates.

    1. According to the true believers, when their guy wins it is because they were able to get their message out to the voters, and when their guy loses it is because Big Money brainwashed the voters into believing lies. They don’t give a shit if their guy is beholden to a small number of large donors, because their guy is immune to corporate influence. It’s the other guy who is a puppet.

      1. Sure, obviously this gets applied one-way. I’m just saying, I don’t think the argument is so much about who wins elections as who influences the winner.

        1. Of course it’s about who wins. It’s always about who wins. Whenever the other guy wins it’s not because of some “mandate from the people” like when their guy wins. It’s because the voters were fed lies financed by Big Money, or some other excuse.

    2. They obsess over Citizens United and money in politics because that is how they rationalize their policies being so unpopular. They can’t accept that their policies could be unpopular or not work. No. The only reason that anyone would ever vote against them is because they have been tricked by some evil special interest flooding the election with dirty money.

      1. Just as most of them lie about the reason they want amnesty – to get a flood of socialist-leaning voters – they also lie about their objection to Citizens United – it diminishes the effect the treasonous media has with their unfettered access to influencing political matters.
        How can you tell if a lib/prog is lying?…

  16. Progressive contempt for average Americans is such that they really do think that if it weren’t for the Koch brothers, we wouldn’t give a damn about Obama squandering our future paychecks to bail out Wall Street, etc.

    . . . and that is sooooooooo offensive.

    I can think of numerous examples of candidates spending money only to lose anyway, too. If the money didn’t matter at all, candidates wouldn’t spend so much time and effort chasing it, but the idea that we wouldn’t object to the socialist and authoritarian garbage the progressives are selling if it weren’t for the money candidates spend on advertising is to be willfully obtuse.

    The first rule of progressive club is that the people want what the progressives want.

    The second rule of progressive club is that if the people don’t want what the progressives want, see rule number 1.

    1. Agreed. I’m continuously offended by the implied idea that I’m such a goddamn idiot that my non-support of Obama is primarily a function of whether Jeb Bush could afford to run five ads in New Hampshire this hour or just three. Instead of, you know, that I have honest opinions on how government should be run based on my experience and worldview, and I just spent eight years watching Obama shit on them.

  17. All of the crying on the left and in the democrat party about “corporations stealing elections” etc. is just a symptom of their 100 year long history of socialism and class warfare being the foundation for their worldview (if you can call an inconsistent, incoherent, non-nonsensical, illogical, self-contradicting, paradoxical philosophy a worldview) coming out. It’s that simple. They want the government to take away stuff from the rich and give it to them because supposedly they have suffered some wrong at the hands of said evil corporations. It doesn’t matter what rhetoric they use or how they dress it up; they are Marxist, pinko, commies, plain and simple and nothing is more important than the revolution (whether it’s a violent one or a more Fabian style sneaky, long term one).

    They would put us all in re-education camps if they could.

  18. National Review has been booted from co-hosting Republican debates because of their anti-Trump issue.

    Donald Trump: So anti-establishment that the establishment backs him over a publication founded by William F. Buckley.

    1. Well, I guess having the Republican establishment host the Republican debates is better than having George Snuffalufagus do it.

    2. I’ll say this much for the Republicans – they deserve whatever Trump ultimately gives them. They are proving themselves to be more than happy to lay with him as long as he polls well.

      1. They really do. Them and a lot of other people. Trump is a total and complete result of the Republican Party pissing all over its most loyal supporters for the last 20+ years. If the Republican Party had made any kind of effort to honestly advocate for small government and not view as a way to pay off their cronies and interests instead of Democratic ones, Trump would have no constituency.

        1. Trump’s constituency is not people yearning for a smaller government.

          1. Yes and no. They don’t want a Libertarian government. But they want a less corrupt government. There is more to government than enforcing the borders or trade policy. They want the stealing to stop.

            1. I’m honestly curious what you base that on.

              My impression is that Trump’s support comes from people who feel looked down on and hated by the liberal elite, and who think Republicans are willing to cut deals with those people to try and appeal to a soft middle. Trump tells people they hate to fuck off, so they love him. I haven’t gotten a whiff of support for Trump because of any specific issues of corruption. When Trump gets specific, its on things like borders and trade policy. Unless you’ve heard stuff I haven’t?

              1. I think they are all that. And part of why they hate the liberal elite is that they feel like they are looting the country. They feel like things like open immigration and trade are nothing but pay offs to the rich and powerful. They basically feel like both parties and Washington are there to steal and fuck the rest of the country. And they are basically right about that.

            2. Unless it’s to build a wall around the border and staff thousands of border guards within a hundred miles of it, or subsidize domestic producers and force consumers to pay higher prices.

              Or a fabulous Trump casino with the best steaks you will ever taste. But other than that, no more stealing!

              1. They aren’t against stealing, they’re just upset they aren’t getting any of the loot.

                1. This. It’s like how some people who liked Ron Paul in 12 went full commie. They are angry. They feel unrepresented. And their solution is a ruse.

      2. Yep.

        I’m horrified by the idea of Trump owning the Republican party, but I’m starting to think he’s better in the long run than a Jeb Bush equivalent, because at least there’s a nonzero chance that Trump embarrasses the Republicans so badly that something honestly changes about the party. Bush and his ilk would be same ol’ and we’d have the same Republicans as always a decade from now.

  19. Citizens United has so thoroughly allowed our democracy to be bought by the big KKKorporations that Jeb Bush’s 100 million dollar super pacs guaranteed him the victory and Hillary Clinton has just cruised into a 50 point lead over Bernie Sanders.

    Imagine – without Citizens United some outside candidates like Trump and Cruz might be leading and Hillary might be in free fall against Bernie Sanders.

  20. Yesterday Hillary Clinton marked the sixth anniversary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

    They mark the anniversary?

    God, they’re pathetic.

    1. Yeah, that’s pretty fucking bad. Pathetic might be too mild a word for it.

  21. So, she is blaming a video again?

  22. Reading her piece, she’s mostly co-opting social justice warrior rhetoric about diversity. She’s basically spinning free speech and Citizens United as a pathetic excuse to facilitate wealthy white Americans imposing their will on minorities and the poor.

    This piece of hers at CNN speaks to a number of issues. In addition to getting her message across to her constituents, it also serves as a compelling example of why a vicious retard like Trump might yet make a better President than Hillary Clinton.

    1. Trump is a roll of the dice.

      Hillary is rolling loaded dice, and you know you’ll get snake eyes.

      1. There’s one part of her piece that really sticks our. She writes, “Meanwhile, we need more transparency in our politics. In the last three elections, more than $600 million in donations came from unknown, untraceable sources. That’s a lot of secret, unaccountable money.”

        Nobody knows more about money secretly going into campaigns than Hillary Clinton.

        Never mind that RTC money meant to bail out the widows and orphans who lost their life savings in a failed S&L ended up in her husband’s campaign fund by way of a bogus real estate deal she herself put together at Rose.

        She also accepted millions of donations from foreign governments to her private foundation while she was the sitting Secretary of State.

        She’s bringing up transparency, untraceable sources, and unaccountable money?!

        This lady has got some giant sized balls.

        1. No she doesnt. Hillary keeps doing this over and over. She bring up issues where she is most vulnerable.

          My wife is convinced that when she had her health issue a while back that she actually had a stroke which is being kept from the public. It’s not balls, it’s brain damage.

          1. But the giant sized balls theory explains the pant suits.

            1. Maybe her balls are so big because she has testicular cancer, which has spread to her brain and is causing the erratic and self destructive behavior.

              Probably makes her super horny, too.

  23. The “unlimited” adjective really tickles me. Yeah, those greedy CEOs – who otherwise hoard their money – now spend unlimited amounts of cash influencing elections, or whatever.

    1. You would think them spending limitless money would be super awesome since it would get us out of recession.

      Call it “campaign Keynesianism.”

      1. You would also think the stock-holders would be a little pissed watching the value of their stock being drained away.
        But I come bearing good news: This is you ‘blame it on them day!’
        “17 amusing squirrel photos for National Squirrel Day”…..774765.php
        Yes, today is National Squirrel Day, and whatever happens, ‘they’ did it!

        1. You would also think the stock-holders would be a little pissed watching the value of their stock being drained away.

          This exact thought crossed my mind. Empirical evidence shows that corporate spending on elections is a very risky venture with the chance of zero ROI and a total loss of principal.

        2. This is H&R. Every day is Squirrel Day.

    2. People on the left take great pride in being logically inconsistent and intellectually dishonest. To do otherwise is to be an icky ideologue.

  24. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the proggies about money in politics and the Koch brothers most of the top donor orgs are lefties and heavily backing Dems. It is not even close. Tom Steyer absolutely dwarfs the Kochs in terms of donations.

  25. Hillary the Movie can be viewed for free:

    1. I have questioned a number of proggies who claimed that Citizens United was the worst thing since slavery if they knew what the case was about. Invariably I get the standard, “corporations as people” garbage and talking points. When I ask them to get more specific and ask if they know any particulars of the case I have had only one who even knew who Citizens United was and that it was about a documentary. My favourite response was that it was a Republican law that allowed corporations to spend as much money as they wanted on races.

  26. I propose that, instead of dollar amounts, all money quoted in news stories should be expressed as a percentage of the federal budget. So, instead of saying $100 million, which sounds like a lot of money, they should say 0.0027% of the federal budget. That way people will keep in mind what the potential payoff is for the winner.

  27. I don’t know why people can’t see that all the arguments about the merits of campaign finance regulations are completely irrelevant to what the 1st amendment actually says.

    I suppose they mostly just don’t care.

    1. The 1st amendment was written by a bunch of dead white men for an agricultural patriarchy over a hundred years ago. I don’t really know what it says, but I’m pretty sure that it must be re-interpreted for a post-modern progressive society so that people cannot say things that I disagree with.

  28. NEWSFLASH……………………..The USA is NOT a democracy!!


  29. Leftism is a mental disorder.

  30. I have NEVER been able to afford to “speak”.
    Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.

    Donations of money are not speech but are bribes given in hope of some return. Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.
    This article’s claim is the most idiotic claim I have seen in a long time but Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.

    Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.
    Boycotting corporations is NOT speech.
    Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.
    Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.
    Boycotting corporations is NOT speech.
    Donating money to politicians is NOT speech.
    Boycotting corporations is NOT speech.

    1. what do you think money is?

  31. She clearly has fascistic attitudes. From decades ago. Obviously including health care. What she is remains crystal clear.

    Where the opposition — left or right — is remains a mystery to me.

    To her left from the certifiable Vermont madman from Greenwich Village? And from her right with the the inheritance-rich, spoiled brat, with arrested development somewhere at the college frat-boy level?

    A man who did not expand that wealth at a rate that matched the S&P 500? That conclusion, of course, requires believing a lot of guessing about his actual net worth. Real Estate, with leverage, is a wonderful fantasy world.

  32. making it easier to challenge incumbents is the last thing she wants to do

    1. I really miss that crappy candy bar from the 80s…TOFFIFAY or something like that

      Its the one with TOFFEE in it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.