It is interesting that Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton talks about America as a democracy as it is a Constitutional Republic which democratically elects our officials.
Mrs. Clinton makes an odd causal nexus between improving the economy with overturning judicial rulings. Promising to repeal the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision probably played well to the progressive DNC throng gathered at Wells Fargo Center. But it is stretching the truth to claim that Citizens United was about limiting corporate money in politics.
At its essence, the Citizens United decision was about Free Speech. Citizens v, FEC (2010) was a Supreme Court decision about Free Speech. The facts involved a non-profit organization which sought to air "Hillary: The Movie" within 30 days of the 2008 Democrat primaries. Courts applied McCain Feingold laws against "electronic electioneering" too close to elections by unauthorized organizations (news organizations would be exempted under the First Amendment Freedom of the Press).
The Supreme Court overturned restrictions on independent political expenditures from non-profit corporations but upheld that there must be public disclosures of who sponsored the ads. This logic extended to for profit corporations, labor unions and associations. Thus the rise of "527s" in elections, which are organizations which are independent of political campaigns but supplement a candidate's message, which is restricted by FEC contribution limitations.
If you delve into what Hillary really means by her conflated logic, it really means: "Americans will feel economically better by the government controlling free speech around elections and let approved messages from campaigns and what the liberal mainstream media tells you what to think."
That's how Hillary claims that she will improve the economy for the Middle Class, control information in the polity for approved messages or those coming from a liberal Lamestream Media under the guise of getting money out of politics.
