PA-Sen: Fetterman Releases Ad Criticizing Citizens United (VIDEO)

Senate candidate John Fetterman released a new video on Wednesday featuring his community and its failing infrastructure. Mayor Fetterman blames Citizens United as well as the officials it produces for failing to invest properly in the community they are supposed to be representing.

In the sixty-second ad, Fetterman shows the three bridges that are currently closed in Braddock.

“What’s wrong with our political system?” Fetterman asks in the ad. “The money that anyone would have to spend to run a Senate race in this country could fix the three bridges in my community, and that to me is what’s perverse and crazy about this post-Citizens United world.”

“There’s a complete dislocation between the political establishment and the reality on the ground here,” Fetterman explains as he gives a tour in his car. “There isn’t anybody in Washington that lives in a community that’s facing issues like this.”

Yesterday, the Braddock Mayor also critiqued his opponents in an interview with the Inquirer editorial board.

Fetterman is running against former Chief of Staff to Gov. Wolf Katie McGinty and former Congressman Joe Sestak.

March 31st, 2016 | Posted in Front Page Stories, Senate, Top Stories | 25 Comments

25 thoughts on “PA-Sen: Fetterman Releases Ad Criticizing Citizens United (VIDEO)”

  1. Deeann says:

    Thank you for every one of your effort on this blog. My niece really loves doing research and it is simple to grasp why. All of us know all of the lively mode you render powerful ideas via the blog and therefore increase response from the others on that idea then our princess has always been learning a lot. Enjoy the remaining portion of the year. Your conducting a really good job.

    http://www.iamsport.org/pg/bookmarks/elijaht80/read/28886388/new-homes-for-sale-simple-news-editorial

  2. Andy Savak says:

    Change comes from the bottom up. Mayor Fetterman has the grassroots experience and the education to best serve Pennsylvania.

  3. Norman says:

    Fetterman is big a jerk who spends all his time attacking our other two candidates. His inquirer interview was all about what terrible people joe and katie are and nothing about HIM! Its really sad to me that someone from harvard cant rely on how smart he is to show democratic voters that he deserves their vote. We are supposed to be the smart party, not the trump party. Instead he keeps on attacking attacking atacking against two candidates who would probably cast all the same votes as him if they were elected to the senate! I am still an undecided voter but I am very much decided that it WONT be Fetterman.

  4. Susan says:

    ADV, the mayor of a small town doesn’t have the power to fix bridges that are funded by the county, state, and federal governments. He’s fighting to bring attention to how broken the system is because we continue to elect clowns like Toomey, and on the D side–the usual losers like Sestak and McGinty. McGinty has never even held elected office, and her biggest contribution to our commonwealth is allowing fracking to go untaxed and failing to help the governor pass a budget.

    Fetterman is the most qualified candidate to represent real people in the Senate.

  5. Unsanctioned R says:

    David, I’m curious to know what your legal argument is for meeting the strict scrutiny standard in 1st Amendment cases and your legal remedy given the standard’s restrictions.

  6. David Diano says:

    Unsanctioned R-

    I’m okay with jailing both sides.

  7. Unsanctioned R says:

    Funny watching all the anonymous political voices here calling for speech taxes on anonymous political speech. Next, literacy tests to vote I guess?

    Money is speech, people own corporations, consult history, learn the law and stop preying on the ignorant.

    If you don’t like free speech, start petitioning to amend the Constitution and gut the beginning of the Bill of Rights.

    David says Candidates are coordinating with outside groups, but he neglects the evidence because it’s David Brock openly coordinating with Hillary Clinton, Nurses superpac openly coordinating with Bernie, and McGinty caught coordinating with Emily’s List. They should be put in jail for violating donations to candidates, right?!

  8. David Diano says:

    ADV-

    A dead cat, or a monkey randomly flipping a coin for votes would be better than Toomey.

    The bar isn’t that high.

  9. ADV says:

    Fet–when you fix your own bridges, then run for a more reasonable tier–Congress. It is very presumptuous of you to think you are “Senate ready.” You are jumping the gun……….

  10. David Diano says:

    Reasonable Rep

    It’s not so much a question of amending the constitution (though I would support one that killed it), but rather the ruling itself was an abomination that was not a reasonable interpretation of the constitution in the first place.

    Put in some good justices (opposite of Scalia, or even moderate), and Citizens United goes in the trashcan, where it belongs.

  11. Pamela R says:

    He’s been mayor there awhile right? Ain’t it his job to fix the bridges in his town?

  12. BucksVoter says:

    I like these ads telling the story of Braddock. Because Braddock is like most communities across PA and the nation facing infrastructure problems. There is so much wealth in the U.S. that could be redistributed through taxes and used for the common good. Instead greed prevails.

  13. Reasonable Rep says:

    But since you want to talk about Citizens United… 

    The First Amendment expressly protects the pre-existing freedoms of speech and of the press.  This protection has always been understood to concern the expression as opposed to the expressor.  Accordingly, the First Amendment does not distinguish corporate media (e.g., the New York Times Co., a multi-billion dollar corporation) from any other corporation.

    Moreover, the First Amendment does not apply any differently to the substance of an expression when it’s protected by the freedom of speech (e.g., environmental activists speaking out about climate change in a public square) than it does to that same exact expression when it’s protected by the freedom of the press (e.g., a newspaper editorial printing those statements about climate change).

    If, as Citizens United’s critics argue, the First Amendment does not not permit to the People to associate – whether in a union, corporation or environmental advocacy group – and engage in certain political speech, then the logical implication is that the very same political statements could be regulated/limited in newspapers, books, television and websites.

    “You can only print three editorials supporting Hillary Clinton from August through November.”  Can the federal government legitimately enforce such a rule against corporate media such as the New York Times Company?  Of course not.

    And even if you agree with the logic underpinning this argument, maybe you feel that the consequence corporate/union campaign activity is just too negative to sustain?  Fine.  We are a nation of laws – amend the Constitution.

  14. Reasonable Rep says:

    You’re mistaken if you believe that the word “Reasonable” implies I take positions simply for the sake of staking out a so-called “moderate” middle-ground.  I chose that handle because I make arguments that are rooted in reason, logic and principle.  If in someone else’s mind I’m a “moderate” for supporting a state law legalizing gay marriage, or a “radical” conservative for supporting the Citizens United ruling, it makes no difference to me.

  15. David Diano says:

    Reasonable Rep-

    I had a conversation with Fetterman about this a month or two ago. He may be channeling part of what I suggested:

    1) limit contributions to $500 or $1000
    2) use FEC and other means (like cut-rate postal) to cost-control campaign advertising to super-low rate.

    This lowers the cost needed to get out message, and eliminates huge donors dominating. Essentially make campaigns less expensive to run, so there is no need/advantage to having big donors.

    And, yes, kill the unlimited funded super-pacs (which consistently violate the rules and coordinate)

  16. Shannon says:

    Reasonable, I think you’re twisting the point the ad is attempting to make. Nobody is saying take rich peoples’ money for bridges. Just that the Koch Bros. shouldn’t be able to spend millions of dollars promoting their own candidates.

    The election laws are already set up that way… Super PACs are a loophole to campaign contribution limits.

  17. Montco PA Dem says:

    Tell you what, RR – I’ll meet you in the middle. How about if we continue to allow Super PACs to operate with unlimited dark money funding them. BUT, we also tax contributions at a rate commensurate with the amount: 0% up to $2,000, 10% to $10,000, 20% to $50,000, etc. – up to the what I’ll call Koch Level Donations, where every dollar contributed is matched by a dollar in tax. Works for me, and I’m sure it’ll thrill you, too. Your filthy rich robber barons get to spend their money trying to get their protectors elected, and the citizens who are getting screwed by the system at least get a few potholes filled and bridges fixed.

  18. gulagPittsburgh says:

    Reasonable Rep: Sorry to inform you, but April Fool Day is tomorrow. Change your name to Un-reasonable until then.

  19. Reasonable Rep says:

    Shannon –

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, you miss the entire point of my post. Sure, Fetterman throws in the words “Citizens United” but the legal holding in that particular case isn’t what he’s driving at here.

    The late Tom Smith, a living, breathing individual, invested millions of HIS own money running for Senate a few years ago. Under Fetterman’s leftist worldview, since those resources would have been better spent fixing Braddock’s bridges, the government should have seen to it that they were instead dedicated toward that purpose.

  20. Shannon says:

    Jess, what has Fetterman done that is so bad?

  21. Shannon says:

    Ahh, I see Reasonable Rep thinks corporations are people too!

    No “reasonable” person thinks billionaires, be it Kochs or Soros, should be able to pay for public policy that benefits them.

  22. Jess says:

    “What’s wrong with our political system?”
    Look in the mirror Mr. Fetterman, you’re part of it.

  23. Reasonable Rep says:

    “The money that anyone would have to spend to run a Senate race in this country could fix the three bridges in my community, and that to me is what’s perverse and crazy about this post-Citizens United world.”

    Ridiculous as this statement is, it does provide a glimpse into the mind of a radical leftist.

    You see, Fetterman’s main grievance is not that individuals are investing THEIR own resources to advance certain pubic policy initiatives.  Rather, it is that, in Fetterman’s opinion, these resources could be put to better use in other areas, and so the government should step in and see to it that they are.

    What business is it of Fetterman’s? This attitude unfortunately extends beyond campaign finance.

    You’re 82 years old and want to finance you’re own hip replacement?  Sorry, society would be better served if YOUR resources went toward the health care of someone younger.

    You’re in the mortgage business and want to consistently lend to those with the highest credit worthiness regardless of age, race or gender?  Sorry, society would be better served if YOUR resources were used to facilitate a more demographically desirable distribution of home ownership.

  24. Shannon says:

    Great ad.

  25. Pat Unger says:

    He sure is right about Citizens United!!

Comments are closed.