There seems to be no more central tenet of Bernie Sanders’ campaign than his relentless opposition to the Supreme Court holding in Citizens United and the destruction of democracy that it has supposedly wrought. He has even formulated a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees on this basis, in the process indicating a gross misunderstanding of how the Court operates:
Sanders seems to think that the Supreme Court is like a legislative body that issues decisions on matters out of the blue--or else, he is only trying to appeal to voters whose animus toward Citizens United outweighs their knowledge of the workings of our appellate court system.
In Citizens United, the Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a federal law that prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures from their general treasury funds for speech defined as “electioneering communication”. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf As a direct result of this decision, the super PAC for National Nurses United has, as of last month, been able to spend about a million dollars on “electioneering communications,” e.g., on TV and print ads, in support of Sanders, more than any super PAC has spent on either of the other Democratic candidates: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...ciary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html
Sanders has attempted to defend these expenditures by asserting that he doesn’t “have a super PAC,” and makes no effort to raise money for a super PAC. I don’t know why he considers that an important distinction--as far as I know, no candidate held or holds fundraisers for Citizens United, whose “electioneering communications” he resolutely opposes. Sanders has in no way disavowed the “electioneering communications” by National Nurses United on his behalf; he has not asked this group to refrain from their organizational activities or spending on his campaign. Rather, he has publicly thanked this group by name in his campaign speeches, referring to the organization as “one of the sponsors” of his campaign.
Sanders has repeatedly complained that “super PACs have more influence on their campaigns than the candidates themselves,” and that spending by super PACs “undermines” the “foundations of American democracy”. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/bernie-sanders-chicago-koch-brothers-scotus/ So is that what’s happening in the case of Sanders and the super PACs that buy ads on his behalf? Or are Sanders and the super PACs that “sponsor” his campaign special in some way?
“Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...erss-misinformed-supreme-court-tweet-matters/
Sanders seems to think that the Supreme Court is like a legislative body that issues decisions on matters out of the blue--or else, he is only trying to appeal to voters whose animus toward Citizens United outweighs their knowledge of the workings of our appellate court system.
In Citizens United, the Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a federal law that prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures from their general treasury funds for speech defined as “electioneering communication”. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf As a direct result of this decision, the super PAC for National Nurses United has, as of last month, been able to spend about a million dollars on “electioneering communications,” e.g., on TV and print ads, in support of Sanders, more than any super PAC has spent on either of the other Democratic candidates: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...ciary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html
Sanders has attempted to defend these expenditures by asserting that he doesn’t “have a super PAC,” and makes no effort to raise money for a super PAC. I don’t know why he considers that an important distinction--as far as I know, no candidate held or holds fundraisers for Citizens United, whose “electioneering communications” he resolutely opposes. Sanders has in no way disavowed the “electioneering communications” by National Nurses United on his behalf; he has not asked this group to refrain from their organizational activities or spending on his campaign. Rather, he has publicly thanked this group by name in his campaign speeches, referring to the organization as “one of the sponsors” of his campaign.
Sanders has repeatedly complained that “super PACs have more influence on their campaigns than the candidates themselves,” and that spending by super PACs “undermines” the “foundations of American democracy”. http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/bernie-sanders-chicago-koch-brothers-scotus/ So is that what’s happening in the case of Sanders and the super PACs that buy ads on his behalf? Or are Sanders and the super PACs that “sponsor” his campaign special in some way?
