She wants to keep the power with the people — Citizens United.

Day 63 – My journey to find reasons to vote for Hillary rather than just against Trump.

She opposes Citizens United.

As do most Americans – 75% to be precise. This is the Supreme Court ruling that enables corporations to donate an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns, effectively putting the richest Americans in charge of who can afford to run. Obviously, to many, this is problematic. This decision effectively overturned the McCain-Feingold Act, which limited political spending.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens said: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

There is some irony in Hillary’s position. She has made it central to her platform, promising to make it one of her first efforts – within the first 30 days. Yet, she benefits from the money being spent on her behalf. In my most idealistic moments, I can believe that this demonstrates, while she will use the tools handed to her, she philosophically believes the power should be in the hands of all citizens, not just the wealthiest.

This notion is supported by her small donor matching pledge, which works as follows:

A bill introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., would match donations up to $150 at a ratio of 6-to-1. So if your neighbor were running for Congress and you donated $50 to her campaign, she would receive an additional $300, for a total of $350.

 

Even better, if candidates completely renounce taking any donation over $150, Sarbanes’s law would increase the matching ratio to 9-to-1. So if your neighbor were running a campaign fueled purely by small donors, and you gave $50, she’d receive an additional $450, for a total of $500.

 

So, her plans include both limiting big donors while facilitating small donors. Yay.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/16/hillary-clinton-push-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united/87186452/

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/18/hillary-clintons-citizens-united-pledge-doesnt-matter-her-small-donor-matching-pledge-definitely-does/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-07-22/clinton-could-bring-constitutional-change-to-overturn-citizens-united

2 Comments

  1. I too would love to get rid of Citizen’s United. But actually I hope she takes the legislative route, at least to get something on the books. Constitutional amendments, while it would settle the issue for ever, take, umm, forever. And as we saw with the common sense Equal Rights Amendment, they can be blocked. Imagine all the money that would go into blocking the Citizens United amendment!

    • Yeah, one of the articles I attached suggest the Constitutional route would: 1. Take forever; and 2. Never happen. It’s one of the reasons I like her support of Sarbane’s proposal. But, either way, I’m happy she wants it gone and I am hopeful that her wonkiness will figure out the way to make it go away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Skip to toolbar