Monday, July 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton to introduce constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United within the first 30 days after she elected President.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

Hillary Clinton announced on Saturday that she would introduce a constitutional amendment within the first 30 days of her presidency to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for unlimited corporate, union and individual spending on elections. 

Clinton unveiled her plan in a video at Netroots, an annual progressive gathering taking place this year in St. Louis. 

I know which group of folks is going to want to take credit for this, but it should be remembered that the whole Citizens United case was about that group trying to distribute an anti-Hillary propaganda film before the 2008 elections, and suing because the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act would not allow them to do so.

Of COURSE Hillary is going to want to do something about this once she is elected.


  1. Anonymous6:24 AM

    President Obama made the same promise to overturn Citizens United and had control of both houses. Why didn't it happen?

    1. Anonymous6:43 AM

      Well, it could be because Citizens United did not come down until January 2010. In November 2010, Obama lost Democratic control of the House.

      Facts are an inconvenient thing, Alicia.

    2. Anonymous7:28 AM

      @6:24 AM You tell us, genius.

    3. Anonymous7:30 AM

      Redneck, I am not Alicia or any other troll. It was an honest question. That's the problem with typed words; there is no voice inflection or body language to clarify meaning. I'm sure you know what they say about ass u me.

    4. Anonymous7:42 AM

      7:30 I agree with you. Also, this blog has some very nasty followers, not unlike c4p, which can make it difficult to have meaningful discussion.

    5. Anonymous7:57 AM

      7:30 AM You have an ass fetish?

    6. Anonymous8:31 AM

      It would be helpful if 6:24 would educate herself on what's involved in amending a constitutional amendment. Pro tip: it's not merely "control of both houses of congress."

    7. Anonymous8:50 AM

    8. Anonymous10:51 AM

      Wow, several assholes have once again jumped into the thread. Looking at you 7:28, 7:57, and 8:31. You belong here where we try to have meaningful discussions rather than trying to see who can be the most insulting and biggest asshole. 6:24 had a legitimate question yet you sanctimonious jackasses couldn't wait to pile on rather than joining the discussion about whether or not it will be possible for Hillary to achieve this worthy goal and how that might come about. What you guys do is called being intellectually dishonest.

    9. Anonymous 7:30 AM wrote: That's the problem with typed words; there is no voice inflection or body language to clarify meaning.

      Given this restriction on online communication, plus the fact that an immediate query or response is generally not possible, it's sometimes wise to write more words than one would have used in a face-to-face conversation. For example, instead of the flat, uncompromising, statement that, "President Obama … had control of both houses" one could have asked, "Didn't he have control of both houses?"

      To this, someone could have replied, "Well, he did have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate from August 2009 to February 2010, but Citizens United only happened in January 2010—didn't give him much time."

      Details at:
      or just google: obama control of both houses (which could have been done before the initial comment was made).

    10. Anonymous3:20 PM

      Gee, Ted, don't you think people could just be polite and get along? So much nastiness from a few people. After all, they aren't required to respond. They go out of their way to be assholes. Also I doubt your thoughtfully framed question would have made any difference. We have a few people coming here with the apparent sole purpose of being pissed off. It is getting more and more like the Urinal, which makes me wonder if it isn't those people posting here.

    11. Anonymous 3:20 PM wrote: Also I doubt your thoughtfully framed question would have made any difference.

      Perhaps not, but I note that you wrote what you did, rather than, "Your question would not have made any difference!" I don't claim to have had any influence on your writing, but perhaps these two examples will have some slight influence on one or two other people.

    12. Anonymous6:14 AM

      6:24/10:51/3:20: If everyone is "misunderstanding" you, the common denominator is you. Write more clearly next time.

    13. Anonymous12:57 PM

      I think it is only the assclowns who are misunderstanding 6:24. They show up occasionally to derail conversation. They are very snotty and pretty ugly about things. I think they may be Palins but I don't really know.

    14. Anonymous5:58 PM

      6:24 = 12:57

    15. Anonymous9:59 PM

      Wrong again, Bitchy.

  2. Anonymous6:41 AM

    I approve this. The name suggests individuality but reality is different.

    I also like her that she is sane, regardless of whether I support her ideas.

  3. Anonymous6:44 AM

    OFF-TOPIC: Any truth to the rumor the Palin's will move to Browntown and join the Alaskan Bush Family on their "reality teevee show?"

    1. Anonymous7:58 AM

      Is there any monkeying for them?

    2. Well--the bush boys ARE looking for brides!

  4. A constitutional amendment is tough to enact. Here is Article V of the Constitution dealing with amendments. It would be easier to get the Supremes to reverse their ruling, after Hillary appoints a justice to take Scalia's place (and may be another justice or two) of course.

    Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    1. Anonymous8:33 AM

      It isn't going to happen. Clinton knows it isn't going to happen. Clinton should nonetheless be lauded for her willingness to keep this front and center in the national dialogue.

    2. Anonymous11:13 AM

      Between Jan 2010 and Nov 2010 what happened? So if Hillary doesn't get both houses, how can she fix it?

    3. Anonymous11:16 AM

      Perhaps when Hillary is elected and we have a new majority on the SCOTUS, someone can find grounds to bring Citizen's United back to the Supreme Court.

  5. Anonymous7:13 AM

    Trump Is Their Nominee
    People who write and say hate about Trump are playing in to Trump's hands. He wants division. He wants you to enhance the message he has. Trump and Clinton are tied in the national polls. If Trump is so bad, where is the condemnation for the American people who voted? It seems those who hate Trump so much are to cowardly to call American voters the same scum like words they use about Trump.
    Trump is the choice of 40% of the American people, not just 45% of Republicans. Clinton is the choice of 55% of Democrats, but still only 40% of Americans nationally. These haters on the left even attacked Sanders whose only crime was to try and win the nomination of the Democratic party. Seems the Clinton supporters use hate against anyone challenging their candidate. But it's the American people casting the votes to make Trump a front runner.
    It's not the Trump supporters who started the violence in the streets. It's not Trump supporters who are killing our cops. That violence is being done by forces on the left. So who are the scum that earn our condemnation? Those whose ideas are repugnant, or those whose ideas drive people to violence? Either way it's hate driving this election and our decision on who to vote for.
    I'm not joining that hate. I don't write hate about either Trump, or Clinton. I don't post silly pictures, cartoons, or videos that cast candidates as Hitler, or other evil killers. I do write about what I think is a good, or bad course for America and its politics. And hate is not a basis for voting, or not voting for anyone. But you go ahead and try to convince people who to vote for based on hate and just add to the already vitriolic atmosphere. That will help. That will solve our problems - NOT.

    1. Anonymous7:26 AM

      Do you want cheese with that Trump Whine?

    2. Anonymous7:29 AM

      Forces on the left?! Prove it.

    3. Anonymous7:51 AM

      Sounds more like Trump is your nominee.

    4. Anonymous8:03 AM

      I am awed by flagrant and condoned republican death threats to one another particularly the vulnerable as well as to the president and Hillary. No wonder Trump loves Russia and it's surrogate Manafort.

      What countries are adverse to this? This place is making me sick.

    5. Anonymous8:05 AM

      Fact - The two black guys who assassinated these police were sympathizers of the left, not followers of Trump.

    6. Anonymous8:06 AM

      This long rambling is actual painful to read, the lack of logic is mind boggling.

      You are not joining the hate, but you hate the left so much you blame them for the shootings.

      The left is not to blame for any shootings, that in on the shoulders of the gun men.

      You basically wrote a hate piece.

    7. Anonymous8:19 AM

      Actually, one could say Trump supporters are killing cops. KKK, white supremecists and white nationalists. Yep. Keep drinking the Koolaid.

    8. Anonymous8:23 AM

      You seem to be a low energy total looser, you know just stupid and total failure.

    9. Anonymous8:36 AM

      Translation: I want to be a towering bigot without consequences. Please don't call me out on my racism and religious bias or I'll cry about how you're victimizing me.

    10. Anonymous8:56 AM

      I don't read this as supporting Trump, but as a criticism of hate and how hate is driving the election. I agree.

    11. Anonymous9:02 AM

      Translation deux: Trump has given me approval to act out my bigotry.

    12. Anonymous10:22 AM

      Sorry, but I don't believe these polls. Remember the last election when Republicans kept regurgitating "President Obama will never be reelected'! (All based on the current polls at that time!)

      Can you recall how Karl Rove could hardly believe President Obama had won the election on national TV? It was funny to watch him - Rove made such a fool of himself that night and is doing so again!

      Hillary Clinton will beat Trump and I bet it's going to be by a huge margin of voters.

      Trump is EVERYTHING we do NOT want as a leader of the USA! He'd be a dictator and govern as did Hitler! Plus, he's doing everything he can right now to start a civil war within our country! He spreads hate, fear, racism, unrest and has every intention of controlling Americans should he win the election.

      He's even said he'd close down the media/press that has spoken out against him!

      He would be a dictator - a DIC for short!
      Donald Trump is a liar and fraud! Research and pay attention to what is coming out about him Republicans!

  6. Anonymous7:27 AM

    G -


    I noticed another article on Radar concerning Track. Check it out - looks like some statements made by his attorney. He seems to negate the seriousness of Track attacking his girlfriend. Also some mention of limitations concerning firearms.

    Pat Padrnos

    1. Anonymous7:35 AM

      Link please.
      -Lou Sarah

    2. Anonymous7:48 AM

      I wondered why getting rid of the domestic violence charge was more important than the drunk with a gun charge.

      Didn't make sense, since it is all a farce,why didn't they drop all the charges.

    3. Anonymous7:53 AM

    4. Anonymous8:04 AM

      Go to RadarOnLine. Article is titled, "Sarah's Son's A Drunk! Track's Own Attorney Says He Needs Rahab". I'm sure you can find it.

      Pat Padrnos

  7. Anonymous7:34 AM

    It would be great if the second thing President Hillary did was overturn judges rulings and expunge the judges who are beholding to the person who gave them their jobs as judges in Alaska.

    I'm sorry, I'm just venting over the recent injustice handed down to pregnant women and girls in Wasilla who are victims of Domestic Violence by out of control violent and drunk criminals.

    1. Anonymous7:40 AM

      Pray do tell who you are talking about. Sunshine is the best medicine to expose what happened in Alaska.

    2. Anonymous7:46 AM

      There may be more men and women who can't reveal what happened to them in your state Due to the You Better Not Disclose Anything Against My Family Clause they signed.

  8. Anonymous7:40 AM

    Well, Hillary can call for an amendment, the same way Barack Obama has, but only Congress can introduce the necessary legislation, so, unless Democrats control two thirds of both houses of Congress, this is still a pipe dream.

    1. Anonymous7:59 AM

      Exactly, and why I ignore campaign promises as a rule.

    2. Anonymous8:15 AM

      "Introduce" was poor semantics on Clinton's part. Of course presidents don't introduce legislation: members of Congress introduce legislation. Presidents do propose legislation regularly and mostly their party hews to those proposals and the leader assigns drafting the legislation to the members of the committee it's going to get assigned to.

      I think it's disingenuous to try to claim this was Clinton's idea and one she's had all along. She has never mentioned Citizens United or campaign funding in any of her speeches or positions on her website. Denying this is another nod to the Sanders camp by Clinton is silliness.

    3. Anonymous8:37 AM

      She knows it's not possible. She's keeping the issue front and center.

    4. Anonymous9:09 AM

      8:15, stop lying. Many, many Democrats, most certainly including Clinton, have spoken out against Citizens United all along. Sanders didn't invent this concern and I'm fucking sick of his ignorant-ass supporters believing he did merely because they're so uneducated about everything pre-Bernie.

    5. Anonymous9:13 AM

      @8:15 Well, you just proved you've never actually listened to a Clinton speech.

  9. Anonymous8:32 AM

    If you believe that, I've got a "Bridge to Nowhere" for sale.

  10. Anonymous8:46 AM

    She's got my vote.Better not be bullshitting on this Hilary.

  11. Anonymous8:55 AM

    Introducing a bill is quite different than getting a law/amendment. Unless 2/3 of the house and senate become Dem, it has no chance.

    Once SCOTUS finally has enough justices to hear the CU again, and strike it down, THEN maybe we can once we can veer away from oligarchy

  12. Anonymous9:08 AM

    Sort of off topic. I tried to find the phone number of the main campaign headquarters of Hillary. No luck. I wanted to say to counter punch every glowing
    comment his women put out to night ,with
    the ugly truth, and get it out in ads tomorrow. For example, Ivanka extolling his
    wonderful parenting, and Trump telling the
    world to look at her hot body, and if he were not related he would date her. His comments about women's breasts. His fellow Republican, Megan Kelly, that he treats his
    female workers great, and what he said about her. The" ugly" Carly during the debates. Statement that women should be punished if they get an abortion. I could go on and on about the women comments.
    They will say that he is not a racist.
    Counter punch every on of their comments
    with his blatant, racist comments about
    every minority. They are desperate for the
    woman vote, so he is bringing on his women
    to tell one lie after another.
    As for naïve Palin, thinking she was part
    of the elite and in the family circle,
    he used her for the low information ,
    no information , and far right Christian
    votes, and then dumped her like a one
    night stand. I hope Hillary's aides
    do this and blast it out everywhere!
    As for Palin's hurt feelings, who cares!

    1. Anonymous10:06 AM

      Hillary's folks are counterpunching Trump every step of the way and it will be effective!

      Vote Hillary Clinton!

  13. Anonymous10:07 AM

    "...going to want to do something about this once she is elected. "

    But right now, Clinton benefits enormously from the very PACs and Super PACS allowed by Citizens United. What a hypocrite. If she were sincere, she'd close her SuperPAC and decline assistance from the other PACs and SuperPACs running ads for her right now.

  14. Anonymous11:48 AM

    Ms. President: PBS doc.

  15. Anita Winecooler4:15 PM

    This just in, Scott Baio just spoke, proof positive that frontal lobotomies can be done with thin scars above the hairline.

    1. Anonymous1:28 AM

      I think they do them through the eyes or nose now. Probably why Kirk Cameron always looks like a deer in headlights.

  16. Anonymous9:14 PM

    Keep kicking that dead horse. It might reanimate.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.