[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nope. The Dems strongly opposed the Citizens United ruling that the GOP held so dear, but once it became the law of the land, they used it rather than unilaterally disarming. The link I provided showed how Republicans continue to try to stack the deck to ensure "dark" (and Russian) money keeps coming into their coffers via organizations like the NRA. Try to keep up with the facts before posting or I'll continue to beat you like a rented mule.

Originally Posted by bobabode

I can't tell whether you are simply full of shit or ignorant in the extreme or both.

As Finn showed you, the 'Citizen's United' SCOTUS decision opened the floodgates of 'Dark Money' on the political scene. I suggest you read Jane Mayer's book with that title if you really are interested in the who, what and wherefors of this subject, my mulish friend.

What a bunch of stuck-talk-track parrots some of you are. And Finn, the only thing that you beat like a rented mule is your little joy stick. Bob, go jump off a bridge.

You guys are totally wrong about the Citizens United case, and/or you're trying to re-write history.

You so often forget that the history of the Citizens United case in 2008 begins with the use of advertising for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie during the Bush 2004 campaign. This advertising prompted Citizens United in June of 2004 to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that advertisements for Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, in part because the film was produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities including Lionsgate - Harvey Weinstien et. al. - and appeared to violate FEC regs because the ads "clearly identified candidate for federal office" and were run " within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election."

And you know what? The FEC ruled AGAINST Citizens United, and they were absolutely RIGHT to allow the use of advertising for Moore's film in that manner. Opposition to Moore's advertisements were an attempt to stifle free speech, primarily political speech. In advance of the FEC's decision, Republican FEC commissioner Michael E. Toner said:

"In looking at the statute, the legislative history and the case law, I don't think there's any doubt that independent filmmakers cannot be restricted," Toner said. "To consider otherwise would place the activities of independent filmmakers at considerable risk and raise serious constitutional issues."

And Toner was absolutely right about that in 2004.

But when Citizen's United decided to follow Moore's example in 2008 and advertised for the documentary "Hillary: The Movie" movie during the 2008 campaign, the FEC reversed course and attempted to prohibit Citizens United from advertising for the film. In the decision that was finally issued by SCOTUS, it was everyone's favorite moderate - Justice Kennedy - who wrote the opinion for the majority. His opinion has plenty of echos of the FEC's decision to allow Moore's advertisements for his movie in 2004:

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." Specifically about state or federal laws prohibiting corporate campaign expenditures, government had no place in limiting these because "There is no such thing as too much speech." And the SCOTUS was just as right about this as the FEC was in 2004 when it ruled against Citizens United.

So, the Citizens United case was about freedom of speech and the First Amendment, just like the FEC's decision about Moore's film was. It also didn't create any "new" sources of funding, but it did allow for acceleration of some of that type of advertising and who was paying for it.

SuperPACs, which are probably a bigger concern from the article I posted, got more out of the Speechnow.org v. FEC case in 2009 than they did out of the Citizens United case.

This message has been a public service. Thank you.