LogFAQs > #976973426

andel posted...

inexplicably hawley is right about this and it is almost unbelievable that he supports the right position here. corporate money should be out of politics and it's weird for me to agree with an insurrectionist that deserves to be in prison, but defeating citizens united is one of the most important things in saving democracy ironically enough.

i feel like when you find yourself having the thought "hawley is right" you need to stop and examine exactly what he is doing.

Because this is a stunt. On several levels.

First, Citizens United was ruled on First Amendment grounds. The only way you overturn it is if SCOTUS changes its mind or a constitutional amendment. Hawley, who clerked for Roberts, should know this. Hawley claims he thinks there's an "originalist" reason to think it's unconstitutional but not only is originalism not serious and just code for "let the conservatives on the court do what they want" but a less extreme SCOTUS clearly decided "nah fuck that" so one can only imagine this current one would just strike such a law down without even thinking.

Second, let's suppose SCOTUS changes its mind - I don't know, maybe the conservatives are all out dining on an undisclosed yacht trip with the guys that will argue before them next term and the liberals sneak one by. Or the legal papers get lost in the mail and never arrive at the building so the case can't start.

What Hawley is proposing is very narrow here and is not in any way overturning Citizens United. Fucking Citizens United - the plaintiff that the case is named after - would not be affected by this legislation because they are considered a nonprofit. Know what else are nonprofits? The SuperPACs that can hide their donor list so they can flood dark money into the system with no one knowing where it came from. The organization that spent the most on the entire 2022 midterms? One Nation $53.5m to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund. One Nation is a non-profit and so would be unaffected by this.

Honestly, I can't quite tell if this is some cynical play to seem like a populist and maybe get some people who would otherwise want nothing to do with him go, "But hey... he's got a good idea here maybe he's not as bad as I thought..." or put up a fake fight with "the deep state/establishment." Or if this is just about petty revenge because many companies that would fall under this bill (again assuming SCOTUS is asleep at the wheel and doesn't just kill it while laughing) are ones that actually stopped contributing to him after January 6.

tl;dr: Hawley's bill would get struck down because you can't overturn SCOTUS with a law - you need a constitutional amendment. And since he clerked for Roberts he should know this. But even if you ignore that, it's not even overturning Citizens United, he leaves in place the ability for the rich to flood elections with dark money (including the very Citizens United the case is named after!) It's a cynical stunt.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article281261213.html
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/josh-hawley-citizens-united-bill-rcna123031