On campaign finance, Clinton said even total disclosure of campaign money is “not enough” on its own.
“What good does it do to disclose if somebody’s about to spend $100 million to promote their own interest and to defeat candidates who would stand up against them? What good does that do?” Clinton said.
If elected president, Clinton said she would try to re-make the Supreme Court so it would overturn the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs and other outside groups to pour money into politics. “If I can get enough appointments as president, to put different people on the court, maybe that would work,” she said. But she added that retired justice John Paul Stevens told her the only way he thought real reform could happen would be through a constitutional amendment.
Clinton has made getting “unaccountable money” out of the political system part of one of the “four big fights” of her presidential campaign.
Rigging the SCOTUS would probably lead to hard feels on the right, even though they have tried to do the same.
Emphasis on tried. Remember, the Chief Justice himself did not play to the script when National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, aka the ObamaCare case, came in front of the court, affirming the government’s right to require a tax or get healthcare insurance. There are similar disappointments in David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and no doubt many other SC judges over the years.
Add in the fact that the SC is notoriously reluctant to overturn previous SC decisions, and I don’t really see this approach really working.
A Constitutional Amendment is possible, but the wording would have to be very careful. I wonder if the lawmakers ever run simulations with the most clever lawyers they can find, just to discover the loopholes and eliminate them, or if they just sit around and discuss things.
John Sexton at Breitbart.com gives a short history, minus any hysteria; however, the comments section predictably goes off the boards (one reason I won’t open a comments section).
Joel Gehrke at National Standard also covers the issue, but barely mentions the money angle:
When the Supreme Court heard the case in 2009, President Obama’s attorneys argued that the ban was constitutional — even going to far as to say that the government could ban certain books that were to be published close to an election.
“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked, for instance, whether a campaign biography in book form could be banned,” the New York Times reported at the time. “[The government’s lawyer] said yes, so long as it was paid for with a corporation’s general treasury money, as opposed to its political action committee.”
Instead, the court ruled that the government cannot deprive people of the right to engage in political speech simply because they have formed a corporation.
And that forms the basis of the money angle. Meanwhile, The Daily Beast says Hillary will have to credit Citizens United for getting her elected:
The 2012 presidential election between President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney was the most expensive campaign in history, with each candidate’s election team and supporting groups raising $1.123 and $1.019 billion respectively. Clinton’s campaign intends to surpass that entire amount on its own, and she is allowed to do so because of a case brought to the Supreme Court because a conservative group wanted to have a larger impact on hopefully preventing her from winning the presidency in 2008. The irony is so rich.
Who knows if Clinton will be able to defeat the GOP and Republicans at the game they insisted on creating, but she most likely will at least be able to match them dollar-for-dollar in the general election.
Perhaps this explains the relatively quiet response on conservative sites: a deepening foreboding. Remember Lloyd Bentsen’s legendary put-down of Dan Quayle at the VP debate?
Imagine Hillary facing Marco Rubio in a debate, smiling sweetly, and then tearing him apart. I may favor a different Democratic candidate, but I think she might have the best delivery.
