Clinton pledges constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United ruling

[RINO Tom]

Wouldn't it be easier to just fill Scalia's seat, and wait for them to take up a similar case and overrule the previous ruling?

This.  You can't get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything at this point.

That pesky Constitution!

[Mister Mets]

It's not surprising that she thinks people who made a video against her presidential campaign should be prosecuted.

For crap's sake, cut the conspiracy crap. Clinton is not going to prosecute Republicans for opposing her, this is about making sure that Super PACs have to disclose their donors. If these PACs are on the up and up, they would have no problem disclosing their donors. Drug dealers and organized criminals could funnel money into elections through shadow Super PACs. This is serious.

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

Citizen's United V. FEC was about restrictions on a conservative non-profit that wanted to release a movie in 2008 that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/politics/16ads.html

This is something to keep in mind when Hillary Clinton discusses the decision. There's a conflict of interest.

[The Other Castro]

It's not surprising that she thinks people who made a video against her presidential campaign should be prosecuted.

For crap's sake, cut the conspiracy crap. Clinton is not going to prosecute Republicans for opposing her, this is about making sure that Super PACs have to disclose their donors. If these PACs are on the up and up, they would have no problem disclosing their donors. Drug dealers and organized criminals could funnel money into elections through shadow Super PACs. This is serious.

This isn't a conspiracy theory.

Citizen's United V. FEC was about restrictions on a conservative non-profit that wanted to release a movie in 2008 that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15scotus.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/politics/16ads.html

This is something to keep in mind when Hillary Clinton discusses the decision. There's a conflict of interest.

Citizen's United itself was probably the least important aspect of the ruling. I'd think that most people cared as much about that possible Clinton movie as they do about anything Dinesh D'Souza puts out, which is to say not very much. For anyone to not recognize the broader focus of the ruling is very shortsighted.

[SillyAmerican]

The thing had better be worried really carefully, lest a court use it down the line to severely limit additional classes of political speech.

Of course, no chance of it actually passing, so at least there's that.

No need to actually offer reasonable solutions, just tell people things that sound nice, because many are stupid enough to vote for you. We all like sheep...

[libertpaulian]

If Trump actually manages to win this thing, then the progressive hysteria over Citizens United will have been all for naught.

[RaphaelDLG]

If Trump actually manages to win this thing, then the progressive hysteria over Citizens United will have been all for naught.

Presidential elections are the ones where money matters the least, and Trump is an extremely unique candidate who doesn't need ads because he already has 100% name recognition and is a media magnet.