Feds Preparing to Undo ‘Citizens United’ by Forcing Disclosure of Donors to Conservative Groups

Two words that make foes of the First Amendment go crazy: Citizens" and "United."

Citizens United was the Supreme Court case that ruled the First Amendment applies to everyone: unions, individuals, and corporations supporting their interests through free speech. But the Federal Election Commission has started the process to undo the Citizens United case - and only one day remains for Americans to provide comments asking the FEC to respect the First Amendment.

Why would CU be fearful of full disclosure? Conservative generally have no problem with disclosure.

Ask Brendon Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, who was forced out of his job when it was revealed that he had dared to contribute funds to the "evil" pro-traditional marriage group.

The idea is for the left to have a chilling effect on those who might oppose them. Of course, it might backfire, if conservatives were to use it in the same way.

Mark

Complaints about Citizens United are complaints that the First Amendment is being respected over the concerns - approved by Congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS in McCain/Feingold/McConnel v. FEC - about risk of corruption of the president and other elected officials.
And yet Hillary Clinton, having (reportedly) while Secretary of State solicited funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation (of which she is a principal) and having been married to a man who received six-figure honoraria from foreign governments for speeches, is now the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party for POTUS. This, despite the fact that Article 1 Section 9 provides that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

In what sense would the nomination of Hillary Clinton with that history behind her, comport with the spirit of either “Campaign Finance Reform” or the Constitution? It doesn’t.
I have written to ask my legislators, and you should ask yours, why your state allows the possibility that the Electors which your state appoints
Article II Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
might be pledged to vote for any such a miscreant.
Altho SCOTUS has held that states cannot limit ballot access for purposes of implementing term limits on congressmen, the Constitution says that congressmen are elected but states plainly that a state's presidential Electors are appointed under the direction of the Legislature of that state. State legislatures direct that the electors be chosen by at-large election within the whole state. But - and this establishes precedent on top of the constitutional language - Nebraska law has only two electors elected at large, and each of the others are elected in Nebraska’s individual congressional districts. If a winner of the at-large Electors had ever successfully challenged the selection of an elector for his opponent in an individual CD, that system would not still be in effect.
Your state representative should push for a law against nominating an elector who is pledged to vote for anyone who has accepted substantial money, however laundered, from a foreign government. Then you can get out the popcorn while the Democrats in your state try to tap-dance around that issue while continuing to wax indignant over Citizen’s United. Consider calling for a referendum on the issue . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.