End Citizens United Targets $35 Million Before The 2018 Congress Midterm Elections

James Bopp’s case is a typical example of ‘who laughs last laughs bests.’ In 2008, he got laughed out of court. James Bopp is a lawyer hailing from Terre Haute, Indiana. In 2008, he appeared before the federal three-judge panel in Washington, DC, pleading with the court to give his then client, Citizens United, the go-ahead to air their movie dabbed Hillary.

The video would be aired on the on-demand TV during the Democratic presidential primaries period. In the film, Citizens United portrayed Hillary Clinton not only as the “European socialist” but also ruthless political schemer. In the movie, Ann Coulter puts it that she “looks good in a pantsuit,” Hillary Clinton is accused by Kathleen Willey, who is featured in the film, of having hugged and kissed her in Whitehouse. She also admits in the movie that Clinton plotted to assassinate her cat.

The plea to air the film fell on the court’s deaf ears as they could not be permitted to broadcast or advertise the film during the period citing that it resulted to a 1hour 30 minutes campaign advertisement that didn’t spot who had paid for it. Bob tried to argue that the film was not different from other 60 minutes ads and the makers of the movie would deserve the First Amendment protections.

Like End Citizens United on Facebook

However, this is when the white haired lawyer got an embarrassment of his lifetime when US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth busted into a loud laughter, asking him whether he had read the transcript and that film did not compare to a 60 minute. Fast forward, two years down, the Supreme Court reverted to Bopp’s arguments. Today, James Bopp, who is 63 years old, is arguing against every facet of campaign-finance regulations. Most of these cases he is currently pursuing, just as Citizens United’s all look preposterous and doomed, but Bopp is determined to as well get the last laugh.

End Citizens United is a political action committee that drives big money out of politics. Early this year, the organization collected $4 million in only three months alone and is ambitious that the amount will hit $35 million before the 2018 Congress’s midterm elections. The figure is according to the fundraising details relayed to USA TODAY.

Compared to its first election cycle in 2016, where PAC took $25 million, this one would be quite a significant surge. It is said that about 100000 people had contributed to PAC during this year’s first quarter, and 40,000 of them were first time givers, according to PAC’s president and executive director, Tiffany Muller. According to him, PAC’s mission is to elect campaign-finance reform champions into the congress. Miller continued to disclose that the average contribution that PAC received this year was $12.

How The Supreme Court Changed The Face Of Campaign Finance Laws

In 2008 Attorney James Bopp was literally laughed at by a judge during a hearing on a legal matter he had before the court. He was arguing that the nonprofit he was representing, a conservative organization called Citizens United, had the right to air a movie about Hillary Clinton called, “Hillary: The Movie”. The movie was to air during the Democratic presidential primaries and its airing was blocked by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC had ruled that the movie couldn’t air as it was essentially a 90-minute campaign ad which was prohibited by the law and furthermore didn’t say who had paid for the movie.

During his argument, James Bopp said that the movie wasn’t very different from content you would see on other shows such as 60 Minutes. One of the judges laughed at this and said there was simply no comparison between the movie and 60 Minutes. The matter eventually found its way to the Supreme Court which incredulously agreed with Bopp’s argument and eliminated more than 100 years of campaign-finance law precedent. This Supreme Court ruling established that campaign spending is a form of free speech and as such is protected under the Constitution and also extended this free speech protection to corporations. Even today Bopp continues to bring cases to court he uses to completely undermine any form of campaign-finance restrictions.

Since this Supreme Court ruling spending on political campaigns has exploded and much of it involves non-disclosure of who is financing the ads and other media people see. In regards to midterm elections, in 2002 spending by both conservative and liberal groups was combined less than $25 million. After the Citizens United ruling, it had exploded to almost $300 million in spending. The consequences of this ruling have been far reaching. Increasingly the only people who have a voice in the political process are the rich and powerful. Also increasingly the only people who politicians feel beholden to are these rich and powerful people spending money on their campaigns in inordinate amounts.

End Citizens United is a nonprofit organization that was formed in order to fight back against this ruling. They back candidates who strongly back campaign finance reform. To date this has only been Democrats. The first national elections that End Citizens United took part in was the 2016 presidential elections. In that campaign they raised about $25 million and backed Democrats across the United States.

It was recently announced that End Citizens United had already collected more than $4 million in just the first three months of 2017. They are now on pace to collect about $35 million for the 2018 midterm elections. The money is donated by regular citizens only and the usual amount donated is about $12.