Hillarysworld

As high as Hillary's ratings are, as long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, there is serious trouble for Hillary (and for any future Dem candidate at any level). 

Here is the full decision of the court
As you may know, the trigger was the movie Hillary.

In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary ) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment.

Here is the opinion announcement

The most recent reference to that SCOTUS case law by a Supreme Court (of SC) decision was in this article in the following section:

In other action on Monday, the Supreme Court turned back an appeal in a campaign finance case that might have allowed it to clarify aspects of its January ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The new case involved an advocacy group, SpeechNow.org, which had prevailed in part in a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in March.

The appeals court, relying on the Citizens United ruling, allowed the group to accept unlimited contributions for advertising to back candidates. The government did not appeal its loss in that part of the decision.  (Emphasis added)

The appeal the justices declined to hear in the case, Keating v. Federal Election Commission, No. 10-145, was from a second part of the decision, this one requiring the group to comply with registration and disclosure requirements that apply to political action committees.

Just being grounded in the reality.

Meanwhile, if we as individuals and families making income < $250k have any money to spare, we better put that into saving democracy... you know, just to try to balance the scale against special interests... Or, pay extra in taxes to make up for what the rich will NOT be paying with continuation of Bush tax cuts.  Effectively, that's what it will all amount to.

Even Bill Gates and his dad interviewing on CBS 60 Minutes did not help pass the Initiative 1098 in Washington to tax the rich; special interest ads won and resulted in that ballot measure failing.  We citizens are behaving like sheep not questioning what we are being fed by the jazzy advertisements.  Got to ask ourselves why are they pending so much money?  People do not seem to be asking that crucial question.  False advertisement is working nicely in favor of the special interests.

Very sad state of affairs indeed.

The more I read, the more I am disliking Citizens United.  No matter how much Hillary accomplishes, big money will pour mega big bucks to make her look bad. That's a cynch with this albatross hanging.

-- Edited by Sanders on Saturday 6th of November 2010 04:56:20 PM