Type to search

Democrats Embrace ‘Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

Featured Post Memo Pad

Democrats Embrace ‘Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton


Less than three weeks into her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a stunning feat: She appears to have unified large swaths of the Democratic Party and its activist base to support the core tenets of the Citizens United decision — the one that effectively allowed unlimited money into politics.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling declared that, unless there is an explicit quid pro quo, the fact that major campaign donors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” The theory is that as long as a donor and a politician do not agree to an overt bribe, everything is A-OK.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton’s State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton’s campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.

In campaign statements and talking points — and in activists’ tweets and Facebook comments — the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren’t even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, “there’s nothing new” here.

To advocates for limiting the influence of money in politics, this pushback from Democrats is particularly rich (pun intended) coming from a party that spent a decade asserting that Republicans raking in cash from Big Oil and pushing oil-friendly policies was rank corruption. The Democratic defense of their presumptive presidential nominee registers as especially disturbing to campaign finance reform advocates considering the mighty efficiency of the Clinton fundraising machine.

Consider a few undisputed facts that we surfaced in our reporting at the International Business Times:

  • While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $2.5 million by 13 corporations that lobbied the State Department. Ten of the firms paid him in the same three-month reporting period that they were lobbying Hillary Clinton’s agency. Several of them received State Department contracts, worth a total of almost $40 million.
  • Hillary Clinton switched her position to back a controversial U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement as millions of dollars flowed into her foundation from an oil company operating in Colombia, and from that company’s founder. Amid reports of violence against Colombian unionists, she also certified Colombia’s human rights record, thereby releasing U.S. aid to the Colombian military.
  • Hillary Clinton’s State Department delivered contracts and a prestigious human rights award to a technology firm that donated to the Clinton Foundation — despite allegations from human rights groups that the firm sold technology to the Chinese government that helped the regime commit human rights violations.

The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy, as long as there wasn’t, say, an email detailing an explicit cash-for-policy trade. The insinuation also seems to be that journalists shouldn’t even be reporting on any of it, if there is no such email.

Is it morally acceptable for firms to pay a public official’s spouse while those firms are getting government contracts from the agency headed by that same public official? That’s a matter of opinion, and if the Democrats want to now champion the ideology behind Citizens United, that’s their right.

What is not up for debate, though, is whether the transactions are significant and newsworthy absent some sort of explicit quid pro quo. Even if there isn’t an email explicitly sketching out an exchange of money for policy, campaign finance reform advocates are taking notice and the public needs to know the details of these transactions.

After all, if money is going to so thoroughly dominate politics, Americans at least should be informed about who is paying whom when they cast their vote for president.

David Sirota is a senior editor for investigations at the International Business Times and the best-selling author of the books Hostile Takeover, The Uprising, and Back to Our Future. Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. 

Image: DonkeyHotey via Flickr

David Sirota

David Sirota is International Business Times' senior editor for investigations. He is also a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and a bestselling author. He lives in Denver, Colorado and covers the intersection of money, politics and finance. He appears periodically on national television shows and is a "real guy represented by the character on ABC's The Goldbergs," according to Twitter.

In 2014, he was the winner of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers' investigative journalism award, and the winner of the Izzy Award for Journalism from Ithaca College's Park Center for Independent Media.

  • 1


  1. j.martindale May 1, 2015

    The Clinton Foundation is a CHARITABLE foundation, not a Political Action Committee. Citizens United has nothing to do with contributions to non-profit charitable organizations. What the hell is this guy talking about?

    1. mike May 1, 2015

      Nice try, no cigar!!!
      No it is quite political, most of the money spent by the foundation is geared toward providing access for the donors to the Clinton’s.
      The Clinton foundation is their effort to attract wealthy, self-interested donors who preferred to give to a foundation that could advance their personal political and economic agendas rather than aid the poor.

      1. j.martindale May 1, 2015

        The tax exempt status of the Clinton Foundation is a matter of public record. Your claims are a hash of unsupported assertions.

        1. mike May 1, 2015

          Unsupported assertions, Really???
          Why now are they having to go back and redo their taxes for the last 5 years.
          Why was money taken from foreign govt. when they said as long as Hillary was Sec. of State they would not accept. Typical of the Clinton’s push the law just to the edge of being illegal.
          They have continued to lie about donors, just about 10% of donations spent on charitable work in 2013.
          No, this is all about access to the Clinton’s and power

          1. j.martindale May 1, 2015

            Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!! Oh, and add a “Whitewater!” and “Blue dress!” for emphasis.

          2. mike May 1, 2015

            Change the subject, typical of the left when the facts are going against them.
            Stay in denial it fits you.

          3. j.martindale May 1, 2015

            Altogether on topic. Slanders and innuendo have been the modus operandi used by scandal mongering right wingers trying to defeat the Clintons for decades. And this is simply another example of the same.

          4. mike May 1, 2015

            LMAO!!! Far more than slander and innuendo, but keep that denial going it fits your mental process.

          5. j.martindale May 1, 2015

            Anyone can copy web sites:

          6. mike May 1, 2015

            National Memo, Really??? Left wing site, Really?? LOL!!

            Like I said before, your mental/thought process continues to be suspect.

            Keep trying, still no cigar.

          7. j.martindale May 1, 2015

            Funny you should mention National Memo is a left wing site. That is where I read the oh-so-eloquent screed of Sirota’s that you embrace so dearly that started this conversation. Evidently they are not as closed minded as the web sites you embrace. Eat your cigar!

          8. mike May 1, 2015

            No cigar again for you.
            NM is still a left wing site and you are trying to push an article that is old news and lacking all the new information that since surfaced.

            Politico is closed minded, now that is funny.

          9. JPHALL May 1, 2015

            What new information? All that has been reported lately are a rehash of past insinuations and unproven accusations. Cite this new info and its sources.

          10. mike May 1, 2015

            So refiling the last 5 years of taxes is a rehash, yes??
            The lies about privacy laws in Canada and the 1000 donors that weren’t acknowledge by the Foundation.

            The Washington Post says “Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.”

            “Many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million.”


          11. ralphkr May 1, 2015

            So, Mikey, using your “LOGIC” that means that all contributions to the Red Cross when Elizabeth Dole was their head honcho were to pay for having had access or to buy future access to her (former Secretary of Labor & Secretary of Transportation & future Senator) and Bob (Senator & future President [oops]). Yeah, but that would only make sense if the Doles were Democrats.

          12. charleo1 May 1, 2015

            Good point! It’s hard to find a Right Winger associated with a
            charity to make the comparison. You did, congrats!

          13. ralphkr May 1, 2015

            Well, charleo1, that is probably because a Right Winger’s idea of a proper charity is one that pays the management 98% of all collections.

          14. mike May 1, 2015

            As usual your logic is absent again much like charleo1, you tow really belong together.
            To try and compare a private Foundation of an ex-president, whose board hand picked by Bill and made up of family, past employees of Bill’s administration, and very questionable individuals to the Red Cross an affiliate of the International Red Cross with a board made up of many individuals with little ties to the acting president(dole) just shows how weak minded you are.

            In March 2015, Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog, put the Clinton Foundation on its “CN Watchlist” which is done when the organization becomes aware of conduct that may affect a donor’s decision to support that charity.[5][6] On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, “the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support, with members of the George W. Bush administration often participating in its programs.” [7] Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said, “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”[5] In March 2015, Reuters reported that the Clinton Foundation had broken its promise to publish all of its donors, as well as its promise to let the State Department review all of its donations from foreign governments.[8]

            No, to try and compare the two just shows how weak minded you are.

          15. ralphkr May 1, 2015

            Oh, mikey, baby it is so much better to be weak minded than to be like you and have no mind at all.

          16. mike May 2, 2015

            LMAO!!! No, you have described yourself to a “T”. You are one big empty headed ideologue.
            Surprise! Surprise!

          17. JPHALL May 2, 2015

            Really! Name one corporation or organization that has not refiled tax returns? It happens all the time. Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats Embrace ‘ Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

          18. mike May 2, 2015

            Really!!! For years 2010, 2011, 2012 the Clinton Foundation failed to report millions of dollars from Foreign Govt.’s on the IRS form 990. A charitable organization that for three years doesn’t report to the IRS donations and donors, what are they hiding??? Oh that’s right, Hillary and Bill promised not to take foreign money while she was Sec. of State and if they did get State Department OK before accepting.

            Reuters: For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

            Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/04/23/bombshell-clinton-foundation-failed-to-report-tens-of-millions-in-foreign-money-to-the-irs-197852#ixzz3Z2TK2wif

            You think you are so damn smart, you tell me why for three years all these missing donations and donors. It is a charitable organization, that is their life blood.
            No, they are refilling because of deception and lack of transparency. Deception which is the trade mark of both Hillary and Bill.
            They got caught lying again!.

          19. JPHALL May 2, 2015

            Whoop de doo! And this means what in a court of law? Please prove a crime for a change! We have had twenty plus years of accusations against the Clintons. The only thing proven was that Bill cheated numerous times on Hillary. So prove something for a change.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats Embrace ‘ Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

          20. mike May 2, 2015

            I don’t have to prove squat!! Just because you have no morals and could care less about honesty, you shouldn’t be surprised why the rest of America doesn’t go Whoop de doo. It is about perception, one set of rules for Clinton’s one set for the rest of America. Clinton fatigue is in full force.
            Three years not reporting donations from foreign countries and you just yawn. Pathetic!!! Not reporting was no accident, it was to deceive, just like the destruction of emails on an unauthorized server which is against govt. policy.
            Rasmussen latest polls shows that 63% of independents do not trust or believe Hillary is honest! It is the independents that will elect the next president. You should be concerned. She is a poor campaigner, and has been caught in so many lies.

          21. JPHALL May 4, 2015

            The rest of America as you call it does not agree with you. That is why the Republican clown car of candidates and dim wits like yourself are so involved in the Clintons. You are like a bunch of teenage losers carping about the in kids. You honestly believe that the majority of Americans are actually paying attention to this circus? Dream on. Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats Embrace ‘ Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

          22. mike May 4, 2015

            We will see!!
            Smart democrats are starting to be concerned about her poor performance so far. You are not smart enough understand the implications going forward!
            63% of independents in the Rasmussen poll say she is untrustworthy and not honest. Bad numbers!!!
            :Put those blinders on!!

          23. JPHALL May 7, 2015

            Keep your fantasies to yourself. The truth of the matter is that Democrats, unlike bthe media, never unite till after their convention. All this talk of dissension is merely the media feeding frenzy. Most Democrats have not even begun paying attention unlike you on the right. Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats Embrace ‘ Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

          24. mike May 7, 2015

            Not a fantasy.
            Keep dreaming, many informed democrats are concerned.

          25. JPHALL May 7, 2015

            As I said, pure fantasy. Yes, the professionals are worried, that is how they make their money. The average Democrat could care less at this point in the election cycle. We’re too busy watching the Republican clown car disgorging its contents. Subject: Re: Comment on Democrats Embrace ‘ Citizens United’ In Defense Of Clinton

          26. mike May 7, 2015

            Time for you to head back to fantasyland, that is where your brain lives!
            Hillary has big problems and she won’t address them with the American people or the press. She is the one with her head in the sand.

          27. JPHALL May 7, 2015


          28. mike May 7, 2015

            You didn’t answer squat! The main word is “banning” and you can’t give one name of an official banning research. You are just another dishonest ideologue.
            Name an official banning CC research.

          29. j.martindale May 1, 2015

            No complaints about Politico. My nephew is a contributor. Some of their stuff is not stupid. Sorry, I was making assumptions based on your arguments, not the web site you referenced.

          30. mike May 1, 2015

            No big deal!!

          31. bobnstuff May 2, 2015

            Mike, once again you didn’t do your home work before you posted. National Memo is a very right wing group. I’ll bet you would enjoy it if you read it.

          32. mike May 2, 2015

            Look imbecile, NM is left wing.
            You have no credibility after trying to post an absolute lie about Fox lying and admitting to it. Snopes destroy your lie, so don’t waste my time.

      2. ATC333 May 1, 2015

        Proof please. Does the Clinton foundation not aid the poor? What and how do the Clinton’s receive funding from the Foundation?

        1. mike May 1, 2015

          Over the early years it did help the poor with billions in pharmaceuticals but 2013 money spent for charity was less than 10% of donations. Remember foundations has to go back and resubmit the last 5 years taxes returns because all the errors caught my outside sources.

          Access, Access Access,

          “All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” Giustra reportedly said. “He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.”

          I never said Clinton’s were receiving funds from foundation. But they were using as their own piggy bank, check out the millions in travel last year.

          Too many coincidences of money arriving before or after negotiations were in process while Hillary was Sec. of State.

          One more time, all this foreign money is for one and only one reason, access to Clinton’s. If you think that isn’t so you are living in another universe.

          1. bobnstuff May 2, 2015

            Mike you did imply that they were getting money from the fund, you are twisting in the wind. I’m amazed at how many right leaning groups are defending the Clinton in this. As far as fixing tax returns, that isn’t on common, and when the tax forms are a hundred pages or more mistakes are made, the tax laws are
            not always clear and need to be fixed.

          2. mike May 2, 2015

            Only in your lifeless mind, did I imply anything.
            Tell you what, paste where I said they were getting money from the foundation.

            I said it was political.
            Bill Allison of the Sunlight foundation,said the Clinton’s were using the foundation as their slush fund. 8 million in travel expenses last year.

            Access, Access, Access!! That is the bottom line.

            2 billion in donations and they can’t even hire a good accountant, what a laugh. What they have done is opened them to real audits.

      3. highpckts May 2, 2015

        Whoa and the Kochs aren’t doing that very same thing hiding behind sham foundations??? There has been no proof that this what is going on with the Clintons. On the other hand, the Kochs are right up front that they want to buy this election!!

        1. mike May 2, 2015

          Keep trying to justify the Clinton’s by playing the Koch card. Every foundation that is tax exempt must file IRS 990, and the IRS must make that available to all that wish to see it. The Clinton Foundations 990 form was not showing Millions in donations from Foreign Govts. for 2010, 2011, 2012. How can any organization not report these donations? This was no oversight this was to coverup the fact Clinton had promised not to take donations from foreign govt. while Hillary was Sec.
          Koch foundations are required to do the same. And you don’t think Soros is just sitting on his A$$ as far as the election is concerned.

  2. Dominick Vila May 1, 2015

    I am not OK with it, perhaps because I don’t compare a charitable foundation with a an organization devoted strictly to political goals, and because I would love nothing more than ending the influence of money at all levels of government, regardless of party affiliation.
    I suspect that many Democrats accept the reality that Hillary, and every Democrat running for elected office, either accept donations to remain viable, or should not bother to run because facing donors like the Koch siblings, who are planning to spend a whopping $100m in 2016, without funds or dependency on $5 donations only guarantees defeat. It has more to do with resignation than support.

    1. ATC333 May 1, 2015

      I thought their total investment in 2016 for the GOP was supposed to be 10 times that amount.

      1. Dominick Vila May 1, 2015

        I think you are right. It is hard to keep up with the GOP zeroes…

    2. Kurt CPI May 1, 2015

      The fact that we all realize that accepting contributions from corporate donors is necessary to compete in an election should be telling enough. “Resignation” may or may not equate to support. We won’t know until we see what happens after the election.

  3. Fleagus Gustafario May 1, 2015

    I trust Bernie Sanders a lot more…Hillary says she’s going to take on those at the top…from these donations do you really think she’s ever going to do that?

  4. Laurel Kornfeld May 1, 2015

    Hillary is not the “presumptive nominee” of the Democratic Party, and most Democrats would never support Citizens United. Just one more reason to support Bernie Sanders.

    1. Kurt CPI May 1, 2015

      She most certainly is the presumptive nominee. Care to bet any substantial amount against her getting the nod? Of course not.

  5. ATC333 May 1, 2015

    The writer of this article can step back and ponder this. The anti-Hillary book makes a superb statement as to why Citizen’s United is a total disaster for democracy in America. How can anyone claim that individuals or corporations making substantial contributions to a foundation, or candidate do not expect quid pro quo? How than Roberts, and crew claim that there is no subconscious urge to “pay back” though unconscious decisions to approach an issue in a manner more favorable to your most generous contributors?

    My question for the writer is simply how can Clinton directly benefit from the contributions to the Clinton Foundation? How are Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea directed benefited though money, use of assets, or indirect income to each. Please lay that out for the rest of us to see.

    As far as I am concerned, Citizens United has simply accelerated the conversion of the United States of America into an Oligarchy, beginning with Reagan’s tax cuts for job creators, and deregulation. Now that the top 2% own over 50% of everything, the top 1% own more than the bottom 47%, and the top 10% own 90% of everything, how can anyone continue to blindly vote for their Republican Federal candidates, or any candidate who puts self, and power over nation and people. How does this massive transfer of wealth, unrestricted campaign contributions, and unparalleled access for the rich to our politicians (note the term statesmen was not used) benefit this nation?

    The arguments of that coming book against Hillary are so very relevant to the reasons why Citizens United should be overturned, and a constitutional amendment is necessary. As far as factually applying to Hillary, we shall see.

    1. highpckts May 2, 2015

      I also thought I saw that the author was called out on this book and he admitted that most “facts” were wrong or made up!!

    2. Allan Richardson May 10, 2015

      You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight. A candidate who did NOT accept ANY money from wealthy or corporate donors has a built in handicap in getting their message out. In most elections (going by the odds), such a candidate will almost certainly lose to the one who has plenty of money. If we want to elect people who want to get money OUT OF politics, we must find a way to make sure they have ENOUGH money to get in power, because those who want to KEEP money in politics for their own benefit, once elected, will NOT change the laws. Al Capone’s gang certainly would not have advocated banning machine guns!

      There are two reasons for pointing out that the potential candidates for the MORE desirable party have imperfections. One is the desire to turn the party which appeals to the center left into a more “ideological” party which appeals ONLY to the further left voters. These people have the magical belief that if their candidate is totally honest, there will be no need for the media access which only money can provide, to counter the lies the other side will definitely be able to tell with the media THEY can afford to purchase.

      The other reason would be that the person pointing this out is actually OPPOSED to any candidate of the left or center, and WANTS the conservatives to win. I have seen posts from someone called “mike” which push the right wing viewpoint, even to the point of sarcastically calling this president, whom the Congress refuses to help in helping the American people, a “socalist Nazi Muslim emperor.” If this is the same “mike” who is commenting here, it may be that his purpose is to HELP THE GOP WIN, by encourage Democratic voters to (1) nominate a candidate who has little chance against his candidate (whoever that may be) due to insufficient funds, and (2) to stay home, or vote for a third party, because their own party’s candidate is not “left enough” or is “just like the Republicans” in order to help the Republicans to win.

      Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, may not be the purest pro-labor Democrats, but compare the Clinton and Obama years to the Bush years, and listen to what the Republican are saying. If the Oligarchy feels Clinton would not be “TOO hard” on them, they would be ECSTATIC to elect (with our unwitting and apathetic help) a president and Congress who would in fact ACCELERATE the advancing takeover by that Oligarchy.

      We can only get money out of politics, and get our wages, working conditions, prices, and safety net back by FIRST using money to elect officials who WANT to compete without money, to change the laws. If such a candidate does not get the VOTES, that candidate CANNOT change the laws for the better. Bernie and Elizabeth can do some good in the Senate, provided there is a Democrat (or anyone but a Republican) in the White House, but since neither of them is likely to DEFEAT any Republican candidate in 2016, refusing to vote for a Democratic nominee who is NOT Bernie or Elizabeth, or voting for a third party candidate who is “better,” is equivalent to voting FOR THE GOP. And neither of them (assuming they did not give up, or lose, their Senate seats) could do a DAMN THING to help the 99% with a Republican president and the likely MORE Republican House and Senate.

      Bush Jr. would have lost if enough voters who opposed him (1) VOTED, and (2) voted for Gore INSTEAD of Nader or other “purer” liberals. Since he did win (legally, if not morally), he DID NOT CARE about the voters who voted for anyone else. And the next Republican in this bunch will NOT CARE about anyone except the very wealthy either.

      Oh, as for the donations to the Clinton Foundation, the main reason a rich person or foreign government would give to ANY such charity is to appear compassionate and charitable to the public. The only benefit the Clintons can get from their foundation is likewise to present a better public image. And “access” just by giving to their foundation is no worse than “access” by threatening to primary a Republican who does not hew the Koch party line.

      FDR wasn’t perfect, personally or in governing, but he DID get the New Deal passed, got the banks regulated and deposits of regular people insured, helped the unemployed and unemployable until better times came along (and one factor which HELPED those better times come was the assistance which helped victims of the Depression. All of his Republican opponents were OPPOSED to helping anyone other than the oligarchs to avoid being victimized BY the oligarchs. The successful conduct of World War II is better known today, but his primary contribution to winning that war was in making the US economy stronger from the BOTTOM UP.

      Truman wasn’t perfect; in fact he got his start in politics through a corrupt Missouri political machine, but he finished the war, made the tough decisions about using the A-bomb, integrated the armed forces, presided over more pro-working-class reforms (called the Fair Deal), and kept the Korean War from ending in either a total collapse and invasion of South Korea, or in a nuclear World War III.

      Eisenhower was a reasonably progressive leader (maybe Stevenson would have been better, but we’ll never know), presiding over the most prosperous era in our history, but we can’t count him as one of TODAY’S Republicans, because THEY consider him a socialist.

      JFK continued making our economy more prosperous, and fight communism with smart diplomacy rather than starting wars all over the globe; some say he was assassinated because he did NOT want to ramp up the Vietnam War.

      LBJ, in order to get Congress to vote for his Great Society programs (which, had they not been rolled back after his term, would have helped more POOR people to join the MIDDLE class), had to be the “super-hawk” on Vietnam which his predecessor was not, and took the blame for turning it into the full scale quagmire which lasted 7 years after he left office. The fact that the “peace faction” of the Democrats would not vote for his designated successor Hubert Humphrey, who could have wound down Vietnam AND pushed the Great Society, was the reason Nixon and his Southern strategy won. In other words, by holding out for a “perfect” progressive, our side’s voters helped the other side defeat a “darn good” progressive.

      The ping-pong from Nixon/Ford to Carter, then back to Reagan and Bush Sr. then Clinton, then Bush Jr, prevented our middle class and other progressive agenda items from making any headway. Obama, with a hostile Congress (which was sworn to be hostile to OBAMA even if they had to be hostile to the AMERICAN PEOPLE in order to hurt Obama, and they DID), was STILL able to take health care a significant part of the way to true reform, AND improve the economy (but less than he COULD have done with a cooperative Congress). The other Clinton would do better if she takes Dems into the House and Senate on her coattails. She may not go AS FAR to the left as we would like, but she will not ENTHUSIASTICALLY GO TO THE FAR RIGHT either.

      1. atc333 May 10, 2015

        The comment was not a criticism of Hillary, for as we know, there are politicians who will actually put nation and people first, despite the magnitude of the contributions made. Some are able to separate their oath of office from the subconscious feeling of obligation to those donors. Unfortunately, there are more who cannot, and chose to impose failed political and economic theories upon the nation to keep the contributions coming in. You are right, we are stuck with this system until the voters choose to elect a sufficient number of legislators and statesmen and women who will end the malignant effects of this current system approved by the US Supreme Court as “speech.” Until then Independents moderates, and Liberals will simply have to go about a concerted effort to enlighten the public at large as to the abject failures of Reagan’s trickle down economic theory, A/K/A “Voodoo Economics”, instead of squabbling among ourselves. After all, why are all 10 of the poorest states Red States? Why does their voting public continue to elect those who keep them there? Why has the Kansas economy tanked with Brownback’s application of GOP economic theory? Why are the rich getting richer, and the middle class shrinking? Why wasn’t the Bush II Administration a golden age of GOP Economic Property instead of the Bush II Great Recession? There are so many questions to explain for the public. Why isn’t this being done for America regardless of which Democratic Candidate is ultimately elected, be it Hillary or Bernie or Elizabeth.? Start treating the voters as though they have a brain, and elect more moderate Senators and Representatives who actually understand the problem, and how to fix it, and I don’t mean by more tax cuts for job creators and more deregulation.

  6. Meredith Quill May 2, 2015

    Today’s liberalism might as well be communism without the manifesto.

    1. bobnstuff May 2, 2015

      Nice quote but hardly true. There is a
      big deference between Communism and Socialism. Words have meanings
      and one should always try to be careful when using them or you will
      be misunderstood .

      1. charleo1 May 2, 2015

        The Righties have no idea what either term, [Communism, or Socialism]
        actually mean. To them, both have become pejoratives synonymous to any gov. initiative, or program, that doesn’t exclusively benefit their vaunted taskmasters, the Plutocrats of the monied elite. The idea of charity itself, (philanthropy.) Which the Right constantly avows a great affinity for, if it’s carried out in the private sector, on a strictly voluntary basis. Are now hypocritically haranguing possible conflicts of interests, when those same private donors voluntarily give to a charity founded by an ex-pol, Democrat, who’s wife remains in the public arena. Insisting there must be strings attached somewhere, and most likely advancing a Liberal agenda. All this mistrust about giving away something, then not expecting a return on one’s, “investment.” Reveals something very foundational about the mindset of a corporatized Right. Namely, that they hold all acts of generosity, or benevolence, as inherently suspect. Based on the homologous quid pro quo World they inhabit. Where everyone has must have an angle, and nobody ever just gives away nothin’ for nothin’! In short, the act of charity for charity’s sake, stretches their cynically driven paranoias of mankind as being mostly as they understand themselves. Inherently greedy, narcissistic. And finding selfless acts, without ulterior motives, beyond the bounds of credulity. Ultimately concluding, any act of altruism is mere pretense, in a survival of the fittest World. Where, I give, so therefore I expect, is core to any conduct.

        1. highpckts May 2, 2015

          Well said but I fear all your big words will go completely over the right’s heads!!

          1. charleo1 May 2, 2015

            Agreed. But I have tried to communicate this by saying to the Wingers, theses guys are really screwing you over! Duh-ugh! They angrily spit back at me. It’s you Commie Liberals! Over their heads, under them, it doesn’t matter. Most Righties don’t read past the first line anyway. Or don’t read at all.

          2. dtgraham May 2, 2015

            Some on the left too. Another great post from charleo but I needed a thesaurus to get through this one. 🙂

            Just kidding, charleo.

  7. Richerd Heatherly May 11, 2015

    Today’s liberalism is a false religion. We would also be wise to keep in mind that it is anti-white and anti-Christian.

  8. My2Cents May 19, 2015

    Today’s “revelations?’ Shouldn’t the correct word be “allegations?”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.