4 ms·
>The gutting of campaign finance reform means politicians are effectively owned by PACs and corporations now. Whoah now, you're saying that documentaries criti
by HideousKojima 5y ago
>The gutting of campaign finance reform means politicians are effectively owned by PACs and corporations now.
Whoah now, you're saying that documentaries critical of Hillary Clinton shouldn't be able to be legally distributed? Because that was the origin of Citizens United
- capital_guy 5y agoIt’s a non-sequitur to lead from the cause of the case to the decision handed down. The Court always has the ability to moderate its opinions. One can simultaneously believe that a documentary should be able to be distributed within range of an election and also that money is not a form of speech, or that corporations do not have the same speech rights as people.
- selimthegrim 5y agoPace people who believe oral arguments don’t make any diffence because justices just read the brief (ahem Thomas), Paul Clement’s terrible performance in the oral argument for the government pretty much sealed the fate of Citizens United.