Hillary Clinton’s stumbling campaign for the White House is geared to take advantage of voter ignorance at every turn: ignorance about the government’s ability to promote prosperity, ignorance about the impact of minimum wage laws, ignorance about the damage done by her policies while serving as Secretary of State, and – the point of this piece – ignorance about the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Leftist politicians from Barack Obama down have created a mythology that Citizens United was a disastrous decision because it allows big, rich, right-wing corporations to buy our elections. Hillary Clinton declares that if elected president, she would make it a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees that they be willing to overrule it. Moreover, leaving no stone unturned, she favors a constitutional amendment that would allow the federal government to do what the Court said it could not do in Citizens United – control free speech in political campaigns.
Exactly what was Citizens United all about, anyway?
The case arose because a non-profit corporation produced and sought to air a documentary named Hillary: The Movie that was highly critical of Hillary Clinton while she was seeking the Democratic nomination. The Federal Election Commission blocked its release, on the grounds that the movie violated the rules regarding “electioneering communications” in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), so Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC’s action.
Read more at AffluentInvestor