Re:Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign
by 13thLetter on Monday November 02, 2015 @07:12PM
(#10496431)
The plaintiffs in Citizens United, lest we forget, wanted to be permitted to release a movie critical of a presidential candidate during an election. If that is made illegal again, that strikes me as being quite definitely against the spirit of the First Amendment.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around and run infinite quantities of ads with infinite anonymous funding for said ads, too, to support "Hillary: The Movie", which wasn't actually a movie that they wanted to release, btw, it was actually a big long TV ad.
Come on, at least be intellectually honest.
They wanted to shadow-fund a TV ad campaign.
Clever of you to leave those facts out!
Re:Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign
by 13thLetter on Monday November 02, 2015 @08:58PM
(#10496869)
"Lest you forget, the plaintiffs wanted to bash Hillary Clinton around"
Wait, why would it be wrong to bash a politician around again?
Once again, you conveniently leave out the key part of the comment in question: the source of the funding.
Citizens United wasn't about speech. It was about unlimited anonymous money flooding our elections.
Nothing is wrong with criticizing a politician. That's obvious. But thanks for the clumsy obfuscation attempt.