MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Hillary Clinton: Citizens United Is Tragic for America Because It Allowed People to Criticize Me

Americans dared criticize me via means I can convince you are "bad," says Clinton, and I want it to be against the law for that criticism of me to exist. And you should cheer me.

Democrats and progressives lately treat it as an article of faith that Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision that wrecked the country like nothing since Dred Scott.

Tonight in her New Hampshire concession speech, Hillary Clinton reminded every American paying attention exactly how important that decision was, when she had the chutzpah to say out loud that the real problem with that decision is that it did not permit the legal barring of a documentary critical of her, which she thinks should have been allowed to stand because the legal entity behind it was organized as a corporation.

"In this campaign, you've heard a lot about Washington and about Wall Street. Now, Senator Sanders and I both want to get secret, unaccountable money out of politics, and let's remember, let's remember, Citizens United, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our country's history, was actually a case about a right-wing attack on me and my campaign. A right-wing organization took aim at me and ended up damaging our entire democracy. So, yes, you're not going to find anybody more committed to aggressive campaign finance reform than me," Clinton said tonight.

This is a common theme for her, personalizing an allegedly destructive expansion of the First Amendment and free political speech which is so bad because it harmed her.

And it is what all the angry brouhaha about Citizens United is about: Politicians trying to limit the circumstances under which Americans can band together in certain legal structures and say bad things about them. That is the principle that Clinton and her fans cheer: that government should have more power to make it illegal to criticize politicians.

It's a little weird and creepy, but then a lot about American politics today is.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • commodious spittoon||

    All of which makes it all the more curious why Welch didn't include this significant episode in his best-of lineup of Clinton's censorious asshattery, since it fits so perfectly. (Not that I think Welch elided it for any reason, but his list ends in the early aughts and Citizens United is a pretty serious breach of her already spotty 1A commitment.)

  • jester||

    The vagina is one tough muscle. Ask any abuela.

  • Sevo||

    Got an email that offered Hillary quotes verbatim (and Ms. Postrel is NOT amused!)

    "LOOK THESE UP. THE BOOKS AND PAGE NUMBERS CITED IF YOU WISH TO.
    EIGHT QUOTES FROM DIFFERENT BOOKS.
    Her actual words:

    1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991.
    From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244.

    2) "Fuck off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning."
    From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90.

    3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!"
    Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
    From the book "The First Partner" p. 25.
    Cont'd

  • Sevo||

    Cont'd
    4) "Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?" Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.
    From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton 's FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139.

    5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as "Bill Clinton")
    Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
    From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5.

    6) "You fucking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
    From the book "Crossfire" p. 84.

    7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses!
    We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72.

    8) "Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.
    From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243.

    Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "Broomstick ONE "

  • commodious spittoon||

    You are an ornery cuss. One of these days I'm coming back out to the bay, and I want to buy you a drink. You name the place.

  • PapayaSF||

    We should have a meetup.

  • sasob||

    Ya know, even the most dreadfully chauvinistic, sexist, male boss would probably never speak that way to a female underling. I can tell you one damned thing: I'm a man, and no woman (or man) would ever talk to me that way without getting a whole bunch of it back - job or no job.

  • Sevo||

    "This is a common theme for her, personalizing an allegedly destructive expansion of the First Amendment and free political speech which is so bad because it harmed *her*".

    Imagine her pique if the FBI continues to investigate her and ends up accusing her of wrong-doing!
    The HORROR!

  • See Double You||

    Has Jackandace (joe) made his case for Hillary yet?

  • jester||

    That is settled science.

  • SugarFree||

    I think he's pretending to be a Sanders fan, but when that falls apart he'll go back to lapping at her squamous twat.

  • ||

    I come to H&R to expand my knowledge - squamous indeed

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    I thought the common theme for her was all the other trim involved in her marriage to Bill.

  • SimonD||

    Yay! I get to play this time:

    You know who else wanted to ban speech that harmed her (or him)?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Regardless of whether Bernie or Trump becomes our next President, and all the awfulness that would entail, it would be delightful to see Hillary Clinton be rejected by her own party and America, again, and then see the ongoing FBI investigation against her turn into a full fledged prosecution.

    Hillary is a crook. She's already gotten away with so much--just for marrying well. She's megalomaniac who thinks she can get away with murder (because she's gotten away with it so many times before) and still be the President. I'd love to see pictures of Hillary sweeping the floor in jail leaked to the tabloids--like what happened with Martha Stewart.

    Hillary deserves to go to prison for a long, long time.

  • straffinrun||

    Yep. That's a silver lining.

  • jester||

    I even commented that before, but I don't hope that she wins such that such would happen (I doubt it would). But should she win, or anyone else, I would wish all dirt unveiled.
    BTW: Did you know that vainglorious assholes run for pres?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Crazy Macedonians. Haven't they heard? Fences don't work

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....paign=1490

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Seems like it. They built one fence in November and 68,000 refugees alone have managed to enter since January.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Those were allowed in, I think? Article is from a tabloid (or should that be THE Tabloid? though maybe that's The Sun), so clarity is optional but

    Since November only refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq have been allowed to cross the border on their journey to western Europe, but migrants from other countries have still tried to get across.
    ...
    More than 68,000 refugees have been registered entering Macedonia since the beginning of the year, and police say they stopped about 4,000 people trying to cross illegally in January alone.


    How many got by the fence? No one knows, I guess. Also, "knowing things" tends not to be big requirement for Daily Fail in general...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    True. I'm also bothered by the misuse of the word "refugee", which has a specific legal meaning. However, at this point, I know it's a losing battle.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I was giving DM at least some benefit of the doubt, in that "registered refugees" would be ones matching the legal definition sufficiently to pass the muster and thus be registered AS refugees...

  • SIV||

    the misuse of the word "refugee", which has a specific legal meaning

    WTF? Not this shit again, and from a linguist?

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'm pretty sure at this point, "refugee" just means "immigrant from a shithole". Won't be long before they call people from Mississippi refugees.

  • Cyto||

    In this case, Syria. And with multiple militias holding various territories, ISIS having a large chunk of the country in which to behead apostates and a brutal dictator struggling to retain power..... I'd say refugee is probably pretty accurate.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Katrina

  • rudehost||

    I already refer to people from New Jersey that way and I don't want them in this country.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Clinton and her fans cheer: that government should have more power to make it illegal to criticize politicians."

    Unless they're Unions

  • Jerryskids||

    Yeah, I don't for one minute think Hillary thinks it's wrong to criticize politicians. Just her and (maybe) her buddies. They don't mind a bit if corporations spend tons of money slagging their opponents, because that's not the kind of corporations they're talking about.

  • squirl_55||

    Or if your a race based group, gay, tranny, illegal alien, college professor, or foreign donor to the leftist cause.

  • tao 48||

    It's a "LITTLE" weird and creepy??? How about this is just about the most obvious warning sign of a power-mad control freak that could be imagined. And it's right there in plain sight! The fact that a single sane adult could cast a vote for this witch is incomprehensible. Talk about horror.

  • DenverJ||

    Right? I mean, this woman needs to be in prison, not the White House

  • Curt||

    "it's a little weird and creepy"

    No, it's fucked up like a football bat.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Not to be outdone by HuffPo

  • Brochettaward||

    Mindless zombies. Not like those Bernie supporters.

  • JWW||

    Well, if she does win and overturns Citizens United, I can still form a corporation and engage in free speech criticizing her because as far as I've seen from her behavior, following laws is optional now, right?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Only optional for the benighted political elite, not for the common hoi polloi like you.

    I swear, every time she opens her mouth, she reminds me more and more of Leona "Taxes are for Poor People" Helmsley. (if you're old enough to remember her).

  • Bill Dalasio||

    They're option for her. Not for you, peasant!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    For-profit corporations will still be able to engage in political speech, provided they are government-recognized and approved media corporations.

    Just remember the progressive credo: "We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press."

  • Bubba Jones||

    Every PAC will set up a newspaper.

  • MarkM||

    That might not be such a bad investment by conservative donors. Glenn over at instapundit has been recommending that for years....

  • MarkM||

    Even with a Democrat as president, Citizens United will stand for at least a while longer. The Supreme Court does not reverse itself quickly or easily...

  • PapayaSF||

    All critics of Citizens United should be reminded of the exchange that (IMO) sealed the fate of McCain/Feingold. One justice asked if the law would allow the government to ban the publication of a pro- or anti-candidate book published before an election. The lawyers arguing in favor of McCain/Feingold admitted that it would.

    So, anyone in favor of overturning Citizens United is in favor of banning books. Q.E.D.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They're not books if they don't support the right candidate!!

    /prog

  • Cyto||

    It isn't censorship if it doesn't involve book burning!

    /whoever thought that was a conclusive argument.

    "What part of 'shall make no law' is unclear?"

    /some random idiot on the internet who is capable of reading simple English sentences better than the justices on the Supreme Court.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OT: Language, gender, and sexual orientation

    Basically, yes, there is empirical evidence from phonetics research that, at least in a North American Anglophone context, one can tell if someone is gay based on how they sound.

  • Sevo||

    HM,
    Ever read "And the Band Played On"?
    One of the MDs mentioned that the early victims of AIDs 'had a lot invested in being gay; they all lisped'. Her take is simply that they adopted the speech patterns common within the gay social groupings.

  • ||

    The gays have been culturally appropriating British high-society?

  • DenverJ||

    1. People often change their patois when speaking with different people: I could always tell when my mom was talking to her sister on the phone. "I am not who I think I am, I am not who you think I am; I am who I think you think I am."
    2. My girlfriend's roommate said the other day "I'm so gay, purses fall out of my mouth when I talk!"
    No point, just observations.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Oh, what an amazing insight! Will scientific wonders never cease? Some homosexuals choose to adopt subtle signals of their sexual orientation!

    I'm afraid, though, it's not going to answer the questions you really want answers to, Heroic Mulatto, namely whether the priest or plumber you secretly lust after is actually homosexual or not.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Heard someone at the airport who sounded lesbian. Turned my head and she looked lesbian.

    Did not ask her.

  • sasob||

    Doesn't matter. Just pull a Crocodile Dundee and stick your hand in her crotch. :-)

  • Arroway||

    When I hear my recorded voice, I think I sound like a cross between Paul Lynde and Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory", so it puzzles me that most people express at least some degree of surprise when they learn I'm gay. I happen to work at a Starbucks that is in the dead center of the gayest plaza in the gayest neighborhood in Atlanta, so maybe it's just in comparison to every other guy in the room. Such things are often the topic of conversation there (the film "Do I Sound Gay?" has been recommended. Maybe I'll Netflix it tonight) and it's my off-the-cuff theory that gay men sound like they do for the simple reason that we sound like those with whom we identify. I don't mean that gay men literally identify AS women in general, but if you're at all clocked as gay growing up, most men and other boys shun you. Women tend to be nicer and more accepting. We hang around them more, and that leads to a more feminized style of speech.

  • Jerryskids||

    And let's not forget that the Citizen's United film was done for one reason - CU had earlier sued over Fahrenheit 9/11 being an anti-Bush film released close to the 2004 election, a film Moore himself said he hoped would help make sure Bush was not re-elected, and they lost the suit when the FEC declared that film was a bona fide commercial activity, not a campaign expenditure. Apparently, CU wasn't thought by the FEC to be trying hard enough to make money off the Hillary movie. Apparently, CU wasn't a greedy profit-seeking enough corporation to make their campaign speech not campaign speech.

  • Cyto||

    "We" forgot that long ago. In fact, "we" forgot it so hard and so immediately that it is as if it never happened.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I have not yet heard any rationalization allowing the New York Times, MSNBC, HuffPo, and other corporations to continue publishing. I know they yap about "media corporations", but how do they define that? Surely any company formed for the explicit purpose of spreading news about Hillary would qualify; if movies aren't media, nothing is. If they expressly ban movies, all of Hollywood would have to shut up. If they ban TV networks to silence Fox, what would happen to MSNBC?

    I am serious -- I would really like to hear how they rationalize whatever distinction they make.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I am serious -- I would really like to hear how they rationalize whatever distinction they make.

    "Because fuck you, that's why."

    But really, they think journalists are this protected guild granted special privileges by the Bill of Rights. It's why so many in the media are entitled pricks.

  • Robert||

    See above: If you're trying to make $, it's OK.

  • JeremyR||

    You have to realize that most of the media doesn't think they are being political.

    NYT, MSNBC, HuffPo, etc, honestly think that the Democrat party is the one true way and that anyone not believing that is crooked (on the Koch Brothers payroll) or simply just evil

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    All those answers bypass my question -- how do they rationalize away the fact that The New York Times, MSNBC, Fox, HuffPo, and all those others are corporations, and if it's the catch phrase "media corporation", how do they distinguish media from non-media?

  • DenverJ||

    They believe that they are special, they are the "media". They went to Columbus School of Journalism, so they are the true "press". They wish the government to license the media, so that only government approved corporations are "the press". Of course, they ignore the fact that the 1st Amendment recognizes everybodys right to free speech
    "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.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The media think they are the "fourth estate". Just like the judiciary, Congress, and the president can say whatever they want to, they think that "the media" should be able to as well.


    The legal distinction between officially recognized media and other public speech has already been creeping into our laws, and it's quite common in Europe, with officially recognized media getting special rights, privileges, and legal exemptions.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is an "I know one when I see one" type of judgement which the CU majority on SCOTUS recognized was completely arbitrary and untenable as a legal standard. There is no sensible legal distinction between The Citizens United Corporation and the New York Times Corporation that justifies the latter being able to endorse candidates and the former not being able to publish a documentary critical of one.

    Asking someone who resents the CU decision and they will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why corporations should not have rights.

  • Dimitri Cavalli||

    How much energy has been wasted by both sides on whining about who in the United States has too much "power" (which is usually mistaken for "influence") and trying devise statist schemes to bypass the Constitution to curb that power?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yottajoules

  • MSimon||

    You too Jules.

  • jester||

    Citizens United was nothing like ad hoc African-Americans united in torpedoing her first run for presidency. She needs to discuss *that vast negro conspiracy* or shut the fuck up. Holy Shit, she is one deranged freak.

  • trig||

    The funny thing is that since Sanders doesn't have a super PAC if he wins then it refutes the idea that citizens united has made politics all about money.

  • The Knuckle||

    That's exactly what I thought. I am going to end the programs that prevented, or uh, allowed me to become president?

  • ||

    Howie Dean tellin it like it is-

    “I don’t hear anybody asking Bernie Sanders for transcripts of some speech he made for a labor union,” he told host Andrea Mitchell on “MSNBC Live." “For Bernie to say he doesn’t have a super-PAC…labor unions are super-PACs. Labor unions are super-PACs Democrats like so we don’t go after labor unions.”

    But yeah, Citizens United is the problem, not the fact that Unions raise money for leftists at gunpoint.

    Fuck these people are so terrible.

  • Cyto||

    Labor unions represent "the people", you idiot.

    You and 20 people who live in your neighborhood getting together to oppose a local zoning ordinance that will allow some political cronies to build a warehouse complex adjacent to your neighborhood is "the wealthy buying elections and corrupting the government". Obviously, you must be regulated and monitored.

    Get it straight, man!

  • Bubba Jones||

    The obvious point is that Bernie doesn't hide the fact that he likes unions.

    Hillary is trying to hide her relationship with Goldman.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    OT question:

    Why do so many movies show people closing their umbrella before getting into a car? I have always held it over me as I get in, then close it before closing the door; not even my hand gets wet unless it's from water dripping off the umbrella.

    Saw a movie just now where a rich guy handed his umbrella to the doorman while still 5 feet from the car. Do not understand.

  • Cyto||

    Because it is awkward and inelegant. You would only show the umbrella folding ju-jitsu moment if you wanted to show just how harried the single mom is on her way to the important meeting.

  • LarryA||

    Because the rain on a movie set doesn't fall on the star unless the script says the star is supposed to get wet.

  • Ann in L.A.||

    I actually found this to be a fairly fruitful topic to argue with liberals about. All they seem to know is "Citizens United is bad" and have never really stopped to think. But, when you point out that the decision simply said that the government can't stop people from coming together, pooling their money, and funding political speech, they sometimes can be gotten through to.

    Especially if you start small, such as: you have 10 friends who all agree on an issue and want to pool their money together to take out an ad in a newspaper--should that be allowed? What if it is a neighborhood that wants to do it? What about 10,000 people who find each other online and want to--should that be allowed? At what point does successfully organizing need the permission of the government to proceed?

    That kind of an argument can be understood by liberals.

  • Sevo||

    "That kind of an argument can be understood by liberals."

    Not in my experience, but if you're having success with it, you'll get nothing but kudos from here.

  • DenverJ||

    yes

  • Fairbanks||

    What's their reaction if the group is organized as a corporation? That's where most liberals lose what little rationality they have.

  • bacchys||

    Liberals yes. Progressives, no.

    It's long past time to stop abusing the term "liberal" and to stop allowing illiberal politicians and people- such as those who support illiberal laws on speech and guns- to claim it as a label.

    Free speech is a liberal position. Opposition to Citizens United is not.

  • Vampire||

    Here's a little debate I watched browsing through youtube. Was preety good. Libertarian vs liberal.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1wa2R0Ytftw

  • ant1sthenes||

    If we're talking framing:
    Speech is expensive. The 1% can pay for it directly and individually. Little people have to pool their resources; the only workable legal mechanism to do so is the corporation. To oppose Citizen United is to demand that only the 1% have speech rights.

  • DenverJ||

    I like this. I must memorize it

  • SilentCal||

    This right here. It seems like all of their policies end up hurting those they claim to be helping most.

    If you point this out though, they just don't care. Example: I'm taking a history class and we were discussing the Paris Commune. One of the things there was that they outlawed interest on loans, and made it so there was no reason anyone would ever lend money or go into debt. I said something snarky like "yeah, true equality for the workers won't be achieved until the only people who can buy anything are those with enough cash lying around to do so," and this one lefty woman just lost it about how I was carrying water for the banks (you know, the ones in a different country from 150 years ago), and went in to some bullshit sob story about how debt is evil. They don't even pretend to engage thoughts that they don't like, and I'm sure if they heard this argument that it would be well within their abilities to just hand wave it away with some shit about the Koch brothers running your minds.

  • Akira||

    "It seems like all of their policies end up hurting those they claim to be helping most."

    No, that can't possibly be true. There are good intentions behind those policies!

  • Rational Exuberance||

    "The 1%" can not only pay for it directly, if push comes to shove and only government recognized media corporations are allowed to voice opinions, they can simply buy those corporations. (And by "the 1%", progressives actually mean "the ultra-rich".)

  • simplybe||

    Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump symbolize what is wrong with this country. I have nothing against their political views although I strongly disagree with them. It is just that people would even give these two crooks the time of day makes me sick and really worried about the future of our country.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Does Hillary think that the less people know about her, the better it is for democracy?

  • bacchys||

    Wouldn't you, if you were her?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    "A right-wing organization took aim at me and ended up damaging our entire democracy."

    It's all about you, bitch.

  • Chili Dogg||

    It sounds like Chelsea learned a lot from her parents. In a recent speech, she said this election is one of the most important ever. Why? Because this is the first one in which she votes as a mother. Geez!

    After the first part of the sentence, I expected her to say something about the world situation, the economy, etc. Alas, it's all about her, too, just like her mama. The nut didn't fall far from the tree.

  • batathojaf||

    My last pay check was $16400 working 8 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 19 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do.....

    A­l­p­h­a-C­a­r­e­e­r­s.c­o­m

  • Abe Froman||

    You're almost as bad a liar as Hillary.

  • bacchys||

    At least she got the issue in Citizens United right. Most critics- Sanders among them- think or pretend Citizens somehow opened the floodgates to campaign donations from corporations.

  • Abe Froman||

    There ain't nothin' more powerful than the odor of mendacity!
    ---Big Daddy Burl Ives in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

  • Akira||

    Here's my big question:

    "Progressives" complain that the rich can "buy elections" and ensure whatever outcome they want. They declare that libertarians, conservatives, and all other non-Democrat political ideologies are just "corporate shills" who are "carrying water for the rich". They claim that almost all of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority who seek to entrench their own power and rule over the world from behind the scenes.

    So, supposing that all of these things are true... How did someone like Obama become president? Why didn't those sinister plutocrats strangle his campaign in the crib? How did Obamacare pass? Wasn't it sold to the public as a way to put those damn corporations in their place and give the lower and middle classes what is rightfully theirs? How did the "big money" ruling elite ever allow this? Why is Bernie Sanders getting as much attention as he is? Why hasn't he been assassinated by Koch Enterprises hitmen?

    If money rules every election, and greedy libertarians and/or conservatives control the vast majority of the money, why haven't these things come to pass?

  • Chili Dogg||

    Good points. Hillary is for campaign finance restrictions because she thinks all that campaign money will corrupt politicians. When asked during the recent debate whether all the money she received from Goldman-Sachs had corrupted her, she said no, of course not.

    Hmmm...I guess you can have it both ways if your name is Hillary Clinton.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online