Clinton: Repeal/Rewrite First Amendment To Fix Citizens United
Also says donations to leftist Democrats can't be corrupt.
Hillary Clinton called for a constitutional amendment to correct what she described as a flawed judgment from the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case; she made her comments during a Tuesday-published interview with Pod Save America.
[clip]
Clinton stated that donations to Democrats promising great redistribution of wealth in pursuit of economic egalitarianism cannot amount to corruption. Such donations, she added, are likely altruistic in motivation:
Also says donations to leftist Democrats can't be corrupt.
Hillary Clinton called for a constitutional amendment to correct what she described as a flawed judgment from the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case; she made her comments during a Tuesday-published interview with Pod Save America.
[clip]
Clinton stated that donations to Democrats promising great redistribution of wealth in pursuit of economic egalitarianism cannot amount to corruption. Such donations, she added, are likely altruistic in motivation:
Anybody who donates to a Democratic candidate who is on the record, as I have been for decades, about what I wanted to do on everything from raising taxes on [wealthy persons and corporations] to closing loopholes, and speaking out when I was a senator from New York.
They, in effect, are putting aside their own financial interest to a certain extent, because they are donating to somebody, whether it was me or President Obama, who in [2008] got more money from Wall Street than any Democrat had ever gotten, and yet imposed the toughest regulations that had been imposed since the Great Depression.
We’re not going in on bait and switch. I mean, I say to donors the same way I say on a public stage: “We need to tax the wealthy, and here’s what I will do.” I’ve been saying we need to close the carried interest loophole. … So if they’re still gonna give me money, they must have some other concerns about maybe the future of our country and our position in the world.
They, in effect, are putting aside their own financial interest to a certain extent, because they are donating to somebody, whether it was me or President Obama, who in [2008] got more money from Wall Street than any Democrat had ever gotten, and yet imposed the toughest regulations that had been imposed since the Great Depression.
We’re not going in on bait and switch. I mean, I say to donors the same way I say on a public stage: “We need to tax the wealthy, and here’s what I will do.” I’ve been saying we need to close the carried interest loophole. … So if they’re still gonna give me money, they must have some other concerns about maybe the future of our country and our position in the world.