Greenwald writes: "For years, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens
United was depicted by Democrats as the root of all political evil. But now,
the core argument embraced by the Court's conservatives to justify their
ruling has taken center stage in the Democratic primary between Hillary
Clinton and Bernie Sanders - because Clinton supporters, to defend the huge
amount of corporate cash on which their candidate is relying, frequently
invoke that very same reasoning."
Hillary Clinton came to New York City for a $2700-a-plate fundraiser at The
Dakota, March 30, 2016. Activists groups rally outside to shine light on the
corrosive nature of money in politics. (photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific
Press/LightRocket/Getty)
To Protect Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United
Argument
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
14 April 16
For years, the Supreme Courts 5-4 decision in Citizens United was depicted
by Democrats as the root of all political evil. But now, the core argument
embraced by the Courts conservatives to justify their ruling has taken
center stage in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders because Clinton supporters, to defend the huge amount of corporate
cash on which their candidate is relying, frequently invoke that very same
reasoning.
The crux of the Citizens United ruling was that a legal ban on independent
corporate campaign expenditures constituted a limit on political speech
without sufficient justification, and thus violated the First Amendments
free speech guarantee. A primary argument of the Obama Justice Department
and Democrats generally in order to uphold that campaign finance law was
that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that
limits are justified even if they infringe free speech. In rejecting that
view, this was the key argument of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the
five-judge conservative majority (emphasis added):
For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent
expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That key argument of the right-wing
justices in Citizens United has now become the key argument of the Clinton
campaign and its media supporters to justify her personal and political
receipt of millions upon millions of dollars in corporate money:
Expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption at least when the candidate in
question is Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Courts
conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the
corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated
with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the
corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and
corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual
politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political
power.
Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens
United was that actual corruption requires proof of a quid pro quo
arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way
(which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United
majority, was limited to quid pro quo corruption, quoting a prior case as
holding that the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo:
dollars for political favors.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core
Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you cant prove that Hillary changed
her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase
donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren believes she can prove
that), then you cant prove that these donations are corrupting. After all,
argue Clinton supporters (echoing the Citizens United majority), the
hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political
favors.
Conversely, the once-beloved Citizens United dissent from the Courts
liberals, written by Justice Stevens, was emphatic in its key claim: that
there are many other forms of corruption brought about by corporate campaign
expenditures beyond such quid pro quo i.e., bribery transactions. Their
argument was that large amounts of corporate cash are almost inevitably
corrupting, and certainly undermine trust in the political system, because
of the many different ways (well beyond overt quid pro quos) that
corporations convert their expenditures into undue influence and access:
That core argument from the liberal Citizens United dissenters has been the
central critique the Sanders campaign and its supporters have used to
denounce Clintons massive corporate-based campaign (and personal) wealth.
Incredibly, to defend their candidate against this critique, Clinton
supporters have waged war on the crux of the liberal critique of Citizens
United.
Oh no, Clinton supporters insist, the mere fact that a candidate is
receiving millions upon millions of dollars both politically and
personally from Wall Street banks, hedge funds, and large corporations is
not remotely suggestive of corruption, and were actually offended at the
suggestion that it is. They are explicitly channeling Antonin Scalia and
Mitch McConnell in defending the integrity of politicians who accept massive
corporate money. As campaign finance reformer Zephyr Teachout wrote about a
1999 Supreme Court opinion authored by Scalia that set the table for
Citizens United: The Court suggests that using money to influence power
through gifts is both inevitable and not troubling i.e., the 2016
argument of Clinton supporters.
Whats most amazing about all of this is that Clinton defenders are going
even further in defending the integrity of corporate cash expenditures than
many defenders of Citizens United did. There were many reluctant defenders
of that decision on free speech grounds such as the ACLU, Eliot Spitzer,
various unions, and myself who argued that the solution to domination of
corporate donations was not to vest the government with the power to
restrict political speech (the case began when an advocacy group was barred
from distributing an anti-Hillary film) but, instead, to institute a system
of robust public financing to even the playing field, to disempower
corporations by rendering their expenditures unnecessary. But those of us
who defended the decision on free speech grounds nonetheless accepted, and
indeed vehemently argued, that corporate expenditures are corrupting in the
extreme. As I wrote after that decision, Corporate influence over our
political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our
political culture.
Incredibly, Clinton supporters, to defend their candidate, have resorted to
denying what was once a core orthodoxy of Democratic politics: that big
corporate donations (let alone being personally enriched by huge Wall Street
speaking fees in between stints in public office) are corrupting. In doing
so, these Democrats just as they did when they instantly transformed from
opponents to supporters of Guantánamo, drones, and spying once Obama stopped
denouncing those things and started doing them have spent the 2016
campaign vehemently renouncing the crux of the argument in favor of campaign
finance reform. About this incredibly cynical and destructive ploy, Adam
Johnson wrote yesterday:
Precisely. To make a similar point yesterday, I posted this Twitter poll:
If youre a Clinton supporter, how do you answer that question? What had
been the only possible answer of course its not ideal that Clinton relies
on huge amounts of corporate cash, but she has no choice if she wants to
raise the amounts needed to be competitive has been decisively disproven
by the Sanders campaign. And, either way, none of that justifies jettisoning
what has, for many years, been at the heart of the liberal critique of the
political system: that massive corporate donations corrupt. But as
establishment Democrats have repeatedly proven, there is literally no
principle, no belief, immune from being dispensed with the minute they think
doing so helps empower their leaders.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton came to New York City for a $2700-a-plate fundraiser at The
Dakota, March 30, 2016. Activists groups rally outside to shine light on the
corrosive nature of money in politics. (photo: Erik McGregor/Pacific
Press/LightRocket/Getty)
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on
-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14
/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-arg
ument/
To Protect Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United
Argument
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
14 April 16
or years, the Supreme Courts 5-4 decision in Citizens United was depicted
by Democrats as the root of all political evil. But now, the core argument
embraced by the Courts conservatives to justify their ruling has taken
center stage in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie
Sanders because Clinton supporters, to defend the huge amount of corporate
cash on which their candidate is relying, frequently invoke that very same
reasoning.
The crux of the Citizens United ruling was that a legal ban on independent
corporate campaign expenditures constituted a limit on political speech
without sufficient justification, and thus violated the First Amendments
free speech guarantee. A primary argument of the Obama Justice Department
and Democrats generally in order to uphold that campaign finance law was
that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that
limits are justified even if they infringe free speech. In rejecting that
view, this was the key argument of Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the
five-judge conservative majority (emphasis added):
For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent
expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That key argument of the right-wing
justices in Citizens United has now become the key argument of the Clinton
campaign and its media supporters to justify her personal and political
receipt of millions upon millions of dollars in corporate money:
Expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption at least when the candidate in
question is Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Courts
conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the
corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated
with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the
corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and
corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual
politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political
power.
Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens
United was that actual corruption requires proof of a quid pro quo
arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way
(which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United
majority, was limited to quid pro quo corruption, quoting a prior case as
holding that the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo:
dollars for political favors.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core
Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you cant prove that Hillary changed
her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase
donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren believes she can prove
that), then you cant prove that these donations are corrupting. After all,
argue Clinton supporters (echoing the Citizens United majority), the
hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political
favors.
Conversely, the once-beloved Citizens United dissent from the Courts
liberals, written by Justice Stevens, was emphatic in its key claim: that
there are many other forms of corruption brought about by corporate campaign
expenditures beyond such quid pro quo i.e., bribery transactions. Their
argument was that large amounts of corporate cash are almost inevitably
corrupting, and certainly undermine trust in the political system, because
of the many different ways (well beyond overt quid pro quos) that
corporations convert their expenditures into undue influence and access:
That core argument from the liberal Citizens United dissenters has been the
central critique the Sanders campaign and its supporters have used to
denounce Clintons massive corporate-based campaign (and personal) wealth.
Incredibly, to defend their candidate against this critique, Clinton
supporters have waged war on the crux of the liberal critique of Citizens
United.
Oh no, Clinton supporters insist, the mere fact that a candidate is
receiving millions upon millions of dollars both politically and
personally from Wall Street banks, hedge funds, and large corporations is
not remotely suggestive of corruption, and were actually offended at the
suggestion that it is. They are explicitly channeling Antonin Scalia and
Mitch McConnell in defending the integrity of politicians who accept massive
corporate money. As campaign finance reformer Zephyr Teachout wrote about a
1999 Supreme Court opinion authored by Scalia that set the table for
Citizens United: The Court suggests that using money to influence power
through gifts is both inevitable and not troubling i.e., the 2016
argument of Clinton supporters.
Whats most amazing about all of this is that Clinton defenders are going
even further in defending the integrity of corporate cash expenditures than
many defenders of Citizens United did. There were many reluctant defenders
of that decision on free speech grounds such as the ACLU, Eliot Spitzer,
various unions, and myself who argued that the solution to domination of
corporate donations was not to vest the government with the power to
restrict political speech (the case began when an advocacy group was barred
from distributing an anti-Hillary film) but, instead, to institute a system
of robust public financing to even the playing field, to disempower
corporations by rendering their expenditures unnecessary. But those of us
who defended the decision on free speech grounds nonetheless accepted, and
indeed vehemently argued, that corporate expenditures are corrupting in the
extreme. As I wrote after that decision, Corporate influence over our
political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our
political culture.
Incredibly, Clinton supporters, to defend their candidate, have resorted to
denying what was once a core orthodoxy of Democratic politics: that big
corporate donations (let alone being personally enriched by huge Wall Street
speaking fees in between stints in public office) are corrupting. In doing
so, these Democrats just as they did when they instantly transformed from
opponents to supporters of Guantánamo, drones, and spying once Obama stopped
denouncing those things and started doing them have spent the 2016
campaign vehemently renouncing the crux of the argument in favor of campaign
finance reform. About this incredibly cynical and destructive ploy, Adam
Johnson wrote yesterday:
Precisely. To make a similar point yesterday, I posted this Twitter poll:
If youre a Clinton supporter, how do you answer that question? What had
been the only possible answer of course its not ideal that Clinton relies
on huge amounts of corporate cash, but she has no choice if she wants to
raise the amounts needed to be competitive has been decisively disproven
by the Sanders campaign. And, either way, none of that justifies jettisoning
what has, for many years, been at the heart of the liberal critique of the
political system: that massive corporate donations corrupt. But as
establishment Democrats have repeatedly proven, there is literally no
principle, no belief, immune from being dispensed with the minute they think
doing so helps empower their leaders.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
