Citizens United: The Ultimate Irony

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    Or, maybe we should call it Hillary Plays The Game Better than You Do.

    In October 2009 the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Citizens United case.

    In very brief terms, the case involved a conservative group that spent millions of dollars making a film highly critical of Hillary Clinton. Existing Federal Election law restricted the amount that could be spent on advertising specifically aimed at swaying public opinion of political candidates.

    The Supreme Court ruling, essentially gutted prior attempts to rein in the amount of money spent on political advertising campaigns, and the resultant need for politicians to raise money.

    At the time, conservative politicians and pundits hailed it as major victory, wrapped in the dubious cloth of the First Amendment.

    In a development that can only be termed: Be careful what you wish for, history has been particularly unkind to those same Republican politicians. Because for reasons they probably haven't quite figured out yet - Democrats have consistently been able to outperform their Republican rivals.

    Weird, isn't it? Even rich people are so disgusted by Republicans incompetence, immorality, and just plain nastiness that they'd rather write a big check to support Democrats than their Republican rivals. The Koch brothers are notably sitting this Presidential election on the sidelines rather than support a psychopath like Donald Trump. Sheldon Adelson, perhaps ruing the $100 million he wasted on Mitt Romney, and seeing his favorite stooges spurned by voters, has been decidedly less generous with the orange-faced baboon currently at the top of the Republican ticket.

    Barack Obama, after decrying the Supreme Court ruling, accepted a changed world and went on to out-raise his 2012 opponent by a significant amount.

    And now Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are raising hundreds of millions in both "hard" and "soft" money. While Donald Trump's campaign is struggling to raise a fraction of that.

    To which the Republican response is a masterpiece of sad irony and hypocrisy: They are now bemoaning Hillary's ability to out-raise and outspend them. They call it "corruption."

    But the truth of the matter is this: They changed the rules. And now they are crying like little babies because their opponents play the game better than they do.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Ha. She's up against the biggest troll in the U.S. You will cry when trump wins
     
  3. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #3
    Democrats went from decrying the disgraceful Citizens United decision to cheering on their candidate using it to accept big money.

    My, how times change.

    If only there were a candidate that had principles and never had a Super PAC.
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Unfortunately no such candidate exists.
     
  5. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #5
    anymore.

    There I finished the sentence for you :p
     
  6. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6
    My post was referring to Bernie Sanders, yes. I'm aware that Donald Trump has a Super PAC, although nowhere near having expenditures as much as Clinton's.
    • Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly relies on large individual contributions over small individual contributions (68% versus 19% of total campaign fundraising).[1]
    • 30% of her entire fundraising comes from outside groups.
    • Securities and investment, retired, and legal groups are her top three contributory groups (with securities and investment and legal groups all coming from outside organisations, and retired being directly to the campaign).
    • Donald Trump relies mostly on self-funding, currently reported to be about $50 million or 56% of total financing.[2]
    • Individual donations comprise 41%, where 28% of campaign funding is from small donors and 14% from large.
    • About 10% of his entire fundraising comes from outside groups.
    • Retired and misc. business/finance are his top three contributory groups (with retired being ahead by far).
    Not really a situation that should be championed just because she's raising more money. What ever happened to your principles?
     
  7. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Gary j
    Jill
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    Citizens United if you hold up the value of democracy, ranks as one of the worst rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. When the hell did Corporations ever become people? Whatever human rights a corporation should project, logically should be deferred to the citizens and the owner(s) who make up a corporation. They all get to vote and contribute to political campaigns as individuals. Adding another source, that allows business entities with huge amounts of money to sway elections is just plain anti-democratic.
     
  10. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    Shouldn't have to be a game. Chess got boring, what's next? Poker? 3-Card Monty?
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    Well said.

    Assuming your question isn't rhetorical...this is when. It started with the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co...and believe it or not, it wasn't a decision made by the court. It was something jotted into the paperwork by a court reporter that was accepted as if it were the court's decision.

    And we've lived with it ever since.
     
  12. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    I skimmed through your link and don't understand. I know that previous decisions have weight when the matter appears a second time, but I don't understand, a reporter's note?
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #13
    I know it seems bizarre, but that's how it started. Another Wiki article explains further.

     
  14. WarHeadz, Aug 3, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2016

    WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    Actually we still decry it. Hillary has vowed to try and pass a constitutional amendment to overturn it and elect Justices to SCOTUS that would reverse it. Funny thing about us Democrats, we can vehemently oppose something while simultaneously using it to our advantage to prove a point. Just because we don't like the new rules doesn't mean we can't play by them and win. For that reason, we'll be running the show around here for quite a while.
     
  15. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    If you think Hillary is going to do that, you are delusional. What Hillary says and what she does are two different things. The only way she can get elected is through using big money. Expect any action, if elected, to occur in the second term after she has finished using the laws to her advantage.

    If you oppose something by saying money corrupts politics, then don't accept the money. It's not an argument to say only the other side is corruptible.
     
  16. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    So you simply just don't believe her? That's fine. I'll take my chances with her over someone who promises to nominate Supreme Court justices who will end my constitutional right to marry. There's no competition here.
     
  17. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #17
    I don't believe her because of her record. That does matter, to quote Hillary.

    Nothing was stopping her from declining this money to start with. Her primary opponent had no issues doing that and actually outraised her a few months. Not to mention the millions she got personally in speaking fees between exiting the government and then deciding to go back into government.
     
  18. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    Why should she decline it? I wouldn't. The rules are the rules. The right wanted these rules and now they'll all salty about it.
     
  19. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    But you just told me that this money corrupts politics. Aren't those your principles? Or does this money only corrupt the other side?
     
  20. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    Doesn't matter. If not playing by the current rules puts your party at a disadvantage and will prevent you from ever being in power and able to change the rules then you do what you need to do to ensure the right outcome.

    So, are you going to make your way to the States in January for the inauguration?
     
  21. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    Now it doesn't matter that she's accepting so much money? Seems principles fly out of the window very quickly when it comes to Mrs. Clinton.
     
  22. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    Has nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton. Would be the same for anyone running against Trump. We hate him THAT much.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Corbyn has principles. And an approval rating of -41.
     

Share This Page