Hypocrite Hillary Clinton Wants A Constitutional Amendment Against Citizens United

Democrats have been hysterical over the Citizens United ruling ever since it was announced. They’ve railed against it, trying to whip up the masses…well, the masses of the Democratic Party base, because, otherwise, no one really cares. In all fairness, they have gotten a few polls to go their way, but, really, the same Democrats have taken advantage of the very thing they rail about. Shocking, eh, that Democrats would be hypocrites, right?

(CBS News) Doubling down on a key campaign pledge to take big money out of politics, Hillary Clinton announced Saturday that she intends to back a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that made way for unlimited corporate spending in elections.

In a video address Saturday to the progressive Netroots Nation conference in St. Louis, Clinton promised that she would introduce the amendment within “the first 30 days” in the White House.

The amendment would, she said, “give the American people — all of us — the chance to reclaim our democracy.” The proposed change is expected to protect against the outsized influence of the billionaire class in U.S. political system.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

She might actually recommend it, but, would she fight for it, or just set it aside after an announcement, mentioning it now and then much like Obama has done with Guantanamo Bay detention facility? She goes on to yammer

For Clinton’s own campaign finance reform plan, a campaign official said she intends to sign an executive order requiring all federal government contractors to publicly declare all political spending, in addition to pushing Congress for more effective legislation on donation disclosures.

Intending to close any loopholes allowing for dark money, Clinton would urge more transparency for outside groups and any “significant” donors sponsoring their cause.

The former secretary of state would also promote a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would require any publicly traded company to disclose their political spending to shareholders, according to the campaign.

So, executive action to limit the 1st Amendment rights of citizens and groups, as upheld by the Supreme Court. CBS finally gets to something important at the end

Clinton herself has benefited from these super PACs, which allow for unlimited donations from wealthy Americans. At the start of June, the pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA, had $52 million cash on hand. And the group told CBS News last month that it has already reserved more than $150 million in advertising for a general election campaign against Trump.

That’s putting it kindly

(Center for Public Integrity) Clinton’s massive campaign machine is built of the very stuff — super PACs, secret cash, unlimited contributions — she says she’ll attack upon winning the White House.

Indeed, a Center for Public Integrity investigation reveals that Clinton’s own election efforts are largely immune from her reformist platform. While Clinton rails against “unaccountable money” that is “corrupting our political system,” corporations, unions and nonprofits bankrolled by unknown donors have already poured millions of dollars into a network of Clinton-boosting political organizations. That’s on top of the tens of millions an elite club of Democratic megadonors, including billionaires George Soros and Haim Saban, have contributed.

CPP is very much a Progressive outlet, receiving money from groups such as the Open Society Foundation, which is a George Soros group. They have lots and lots of Leftists on their board. Even the NY Times and LA Times call them “liberal.” Yet, here they are pointing out that Hillary is a big beneficiary of Citizens United. Nor is that the first time.

What she’s essentially doing is advocating the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment. You may not like CU, but, it is based on the notion of allowing citizens and their groups to participate in the political process, engaging in Free Speech, protesting peaceably, and petitioning for redress of grievance. CU was a 1st Amendment case. Why do Democrats like Hillary want to restrict the 1st Amendment? Of course, they mean for Other People, not for themselves and their groups.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

You Might Like

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!