Yes, while local governments may pass such laws they only make people feel
good as they have little influence on a local level. There is much question
that they would even be enforcible if challenged in court.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 3:55 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Citizens United Is Headed for the California
Ballot: Here's What You Need to Know
Paul,
I know that California has all these propositions. However, I gather that in
this case, there's a movement to get local governments all over the country
to pass laws or resolutions against Citizens United in an attempt to cause a
change nationally.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 6:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Citizens United Is Headed for the California
Ballot: Here's What You Need to Know
As a lifelong Californian I think proposition 49 is stupid even though it
wouldn't really do anything we basically govern through the Ballot box here;
you guys on the East Coast have no idea. No more clutter. It's thanks to the
initiative process as currently constructed that for example our state
constitution is filled with legally meaningless policy statements and three
entire articles on tax policy which enshrined complicated formula.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
humans.
Citizens United Is Headed for the California Ballot: Here's What You
Need to Know
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/citizens_united_is_headed_for_the_
califo
rnia_ballot_heres_what_you_need_to_/
Posted on Oct 13, 2015
By Bill Blum
re-argument. It also set a new hearing for Sept. 9, 2009, more than
two months after the current court term had ended and three weeks
before the next term was set to commence.
Even more extraordinarily, in a breathtaking act of judicial activism,
the court dramatically expanded the scope of the case, requesting the
parties to address the question of whether McCain-Feingold's
electioneering provisions and the decades-old bans on corporate
campaign expenditures were indeed unconstitutional.
Four months later, on Jan. 21, 2010, in a bitterly contested 5-4
majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court
announced its historic decree. Section 203 was overturned, and the
court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make
unlimited "independent expenditures" on political campaigns.
2. Citizens United didn't create the doctrine of corporate personhood,
but the decision applied the concept to political speech.
Citizens United is often criticized by progressives for creating the
doctrine of "corporate personhood." This is the idea that, as Mitt
Romney so ham-fistedly put it during the last presidential season,
"corporations are people," entitled to the same rights and privileges as
Actually, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been around sinceconstitutional issues.
the 19th century. Over the years, courts have extended it to recognize
some corporate rights-for example, the right to own property, the
capacity to sue and be sued, and more recently the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment-but
not others, such as the right against self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment. The doctrine is based on a legal fiction, and, as
always, the Supreme Court remains the ultimate arbiter of the doctrine on
In his majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Kennedy neverreally human beings.
specifically used the word "personhood." Instead, he wrote that the
First Amendment precludes government from discriminating against
political speakers on the basis of their "corporate identity." Relying
heavily on the
1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo-in which an earlier iteration of the
court invoked the First Amendment to strike down monetary ceilings on
independent expenditures made by individuals-Kennedy concluded that
corporations were entitled to the same constitutional deference.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting for himself and Justices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, explicitly
took the majority to task over the personhood doctrine. In a stinging
90-page rebuke, Stevens reminded the majority that corporations aren't
Unlike natural persons, he charged, corporations "are not themselvesestablished."
members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was
There was no compelling reason, in his view, to accord such nonpersonsfor such purposes.
First Amendment status in the critical arena of campaign spending.
Four years after Citizens United, in 2014, the same five-justice
majority disregarded Stevens' admonitions yet again in the Hobby Lobby
case, recognizing the religious personhood of closely held
corporations and upholding their faith-based right to deny female
employees health insurance for contraception.
3. The Citizens United decision wasn't needed to prevent government
censorship of speech.
Having embraced the fiction of corporations as people, Kennedy and the
Citizens United majority segued easily to the next stage in their
analysis-that lifting the prohibitions on corporate expenditures was
needed to prevent censorship and bans on speech.
Nothing, of course, could have been further from the truth.
Corporations have no messages, political or otherwise, to convey apart
from the messages of the people who run them.
Notwithstanding the strictures of McCain-Feingold, wealthy individuals
were free then, as now, to fund electioneering communications at any
point in an election cycle, limited only by the size of their wallets.
Corporations were also permitted to establish political action committees
At the time it launched its lawsuit, Citizens United operated its ownidentities of their major donors.
PAC-the Citizens United Political Victory Fund-which was, and remains,
registered with the FEC.
But corporate PACs are pesky and sometimes inconvenient vehicles,
subject to regulations that restrict their ability to solicit funds to
management-level employees, shareholders and their families. In
addition, contributions to PACs must be voluntary, and federal law
limits the amount of money an individual can donate to a PAC as well
as the amount a PAC can contribute to any single candidate. PACs are
also required to keep detailed financial records and disclose the
The Kennedy majority found the inconvenience argument persuasive.small.
Rather than require Citizens United to use its PAC to broadcast
"Hillary" or carve out an exception to Section 203 for nonprofits (as
the Stevens dissenters also suggested), the majority chose to alter
the long-established political rules for all corporations, large and
4. Citizens United extended the equation of money and speech andexploration, and the size of the audience reached."
radically restricted the concept of political corruption.
Just as Citizens United did not create the doctrine of corporate
personhood, the decision was not the first Supreme Court ruling to
equate money with political speech. That honor, once again, goes to
Buckley v. Valeo, in which the court held that a "restriction on the
amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication
during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by
restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their
Citizens United, however, expanded the domain of political money fromexpenditures.
individuals to corporations.
Citizens United also drew on Buckley to gut the meaning of political
corruption as a permissible basis for campaign finance regulation.
As in Buckley, the Citizens United majority distinguished between
campaign contributions made directly to candidates and independent
Contribution limits, Kennedy declared, could be justified to preventdangers.
quid pro quo bribery of candidates. Expenditures, however, posed no such
Nor could regulations in either category be warranted by the goal ofcandidates.
leveling the political playing field or countering the distorting
effects of wealth or income inequality in politics.
Last year, the court used the same reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC,
striking down the aggregate biennial limits on money individuals can
contribute directly to federal candidates, parties and PACs.
McCutcheon left intact-at least for the time being-limits on the
amount of money people can give to any single candidate.
5. Citizens United didn't establish super PACs but it gave rise to
them and opened the door to dark money.
Contrary to popular lore, Citizens United didn't explicitly authorize
the creation of super PACs, the expenditure-only entities that cannot
give money directly to candidates but can raise unlimited sums from
individuals, corporations and unions to spend "independently" on behalf of
Super PACs were actually authorized by the D.C. Circuit Court ofcandidates.
Appeals in its March2010 opinion in the case of Speechnow.org v. FEC.
The circuit court, however, based its decision squarely on the legal
framework set out by Citizens United.
Whatever their genesis, super PACs have proliferated since 2010, and
their influence has soared. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, they raised more than $828 million in the 2012 election
cycle. And while well over half of super PAC donations in the cycle
came from a tiny subset of wealthy individuals and families,
for-profit businesses accounted for more than 17 percent of the
aggregate super PAC haul. Thus far this cycle, which is still in its
formative stage, super PACs have amassed more than $300 million.
If anything, the totals on direct corporate political giving are
understated, as businesses are now allowed to donate to 501(c)(4)
nonprofit groups that, unlike super PACs,are not required to publicly
identify their benefactors. Political spending by such "dark money"
organizations skyrocketed from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to more
than $300 million in 2012.
Nor, as an article published last March by the Harvard Law Review
contends, is there any commonsense reason to believe that either super
PAC or dark money expenditures truly are made "independently" of political
Just ask Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, who in 2011 and 2012campaigns.
famously mocked the independent expenditure system in a hilarious set
of late-night comedy sketches.
Or better still, if you can stomach it, listen to Donald Trump, the
self-financed billionaire Republican presidential front-runner, who
insists that every other candidate in the race has been bought and
paid for by political donors.
6. The Supreme Court has established double standards for corporations
and unions.
On the surface, the court's central holding in Citizens United applies
equally to corporations and unions, permitting both under the First
Amendment to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political
In other recent decisions, however, the court has dealt a body blow tointo one enormous "right-to-work"
public employee unions, the last bastion of organized labor in
America, making it harder for unions to collect "fair-share" fees from
government workers who elect on First Amendment grounds not to become
full dues-paying members but nonetheless benefit from union contracts.
As I've written before in this column, a new Supreme Court case that
will be argued this term-Friedrichs v. California Teachers
Association-threatens to end the fair-share system once and for all,
depleting union treasuries and turning the nation's entire public sector
jurisdiction.Association.
Corporations face no parallel obstacles or threats from the court.
7. Can anything be done?
In a Bloomberg Politics national poll released last month, "78 percent
of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be
overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision."
The American people may be tired, confused and beaten down, but they
aren't stupid when it comes to the role of money in politics. They
know the system is corrupt and rigged on both sides of the political
aisle, and they want the system changed. The critical question is how.
Apart from symbolic gestures like Proposition 49, what else can we do?
I'll try to provide some answers in part two of this series.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/ Citizens United Is
Headed for the California Ballot: Here's What You Need to Know
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/citizens_united_is_headed_for_the_
califo
rnia_ballot_heres_what_you_need_to_/
Posted on Oct 13, 2015
By Bill Blum
Vepar5 / Shutterstock
This is the first of a two-part series on the Supreme Court's Citizens
United decision and efforts to counter its impact on political
campaign spending.
Within the next 90 days, the California Supreme Court will decide if a
referendum should be placed on the November 2016 ballot asking voters
whether they want to amend the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S.
Supreme Court's dreaded Citizens United ruling. The state panel heard
oral arguments on the issue Oct. 6 and, according to press reports, is
poised to green-light the measure, formally known as Proposition 49,
just in time for the presidential election.
Drafted and sponsored by Democrats in the state's Senate and Assembly,
the proposition was slated to appear on the midterm 2014 ballot but
was delayed as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Now, with the litigation all but complete, it's back on track.persons only?"
Proposition 49 poses a lengthy but ultimately straightforward question:
"Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California
Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States
Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission
(2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to
allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and
spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may
express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights
protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural
The proposition is, of course, only advisory in nature. Californiabribery."
voters can no more nullify the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal opinion on
campaign finance than Rowan County, Ky., Clerk Kim Davis can overturn
the high tribunal's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage. Still, the
referendum will serve to galvanize protests and further action against
a broken political process that Fred Wertheimer, the president of the
public policy organization Democracy 21, has called a "system of legalized
In 2012, two other states-Colorado and Montana-ratified similarinterest groups far and wide.
resolutions by overwhelming majorities. But the California plebiscite
promises to dwarf each of those previous efforts-in publicity,
intensity of debate, national focus and, above all, money spent by
Here's a sampling of what you'll need to know to join the fray:nation."
1. The Citizens United case began as a modest election law challenge
that the Supreme Court dramatically expanded.
Citizens United is a conservative, nonprofit "social welfare"
corporation organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code. It was founded in 1988 with seed money from the Koch brothers'
financial network to promote the goals of "limited government, freedom
of enterprise" . and to "restore the founding fathers' vision of a free
In December 2007, the company sued the Federal Election Commission infederal office by name.
district court in Washington, D.C., after the FEC blocked it from
airing
"Hillary: the Movie," a documentary on cable video on-demand that it
had produced about Hillary Clinton. The stumbling block to the group's
cinematic ambitions was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold law), which prohibited
corporations from funding "electioneering communications"-basically,
politically oriented radio and TV ads and broadcasts-to be shown
within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days in advance of a
general election if the broadcasts mentioned or referred to candidates for
Even before the passage of McCain-Feingold, corporations werestories, commentaries and editorials.
precluded by laws dating back to the Progressive-era Tillman Act of
1907 from contributing money directly to federal candidates or making
"independent expenditures" (spending not directly coordinated with
candidates) from their general treasury funds to expressly advocate
election outcomes. Section 203's electioneering blackout provisions
were enacted to close perceived loopholes in earlier campaign finance
laws as an extra safeguard against undue corporate influence. The
section applied equally to labor unions but exempted media companies' news
In making its case to a three-judge district panel that was assignedlegislative matters.
to adjudicate the lawsuit, Citizens United didn't ask to have Section
203 declared unconstitutional on its face. Rather, it sought an
injunction to stop the FEC from applying the section to its film. It
also asked for a judicial declaration that the TV ads promoting
"Hillary: The Movie" weren't really electioneering communications
because the movie itself was a fact-based work concerned with vital
The lawsuit failed miserably. The district court ruled in favor of theno means transformational decision.
FEC, finding that "Hillary: The Movie" was "susceptible to no other
interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is
unfit for office. ..."
Undeterred by the setback, Citizens United appealed to the Supreme
Court, which heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009. There, the
inquiry focused on the same narrow questions dealing with the
application of Section 203 to "Hillary," not with the section's basic
constitutionality. Most observers at the time expected an important but by
Then, something extraordinary happened. On June 29, 2009, the Supremehumans.
Court on its own motion restored the case to its October 2008 term
calendar for re-argument. It also set a new hearing for Sept. 9, 2009,
more than two months after the current court term had ended and three
weeks before the next term was set to commence.
Even more extraordinarily, in a breathtaking act of judicial activism,
the court dramatically expanded the scope of the case, requesting the
parties to address the question of whether McCain-Feingold's
electioneering provisions and the decades-old bans on corporate
campaign expenditures were indeed unconstitutional.
Four months later, on Jan. 21, 2010, in a bitterly contested 5-4
majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court
announced its historic decree. Section 203 was overturned, and the
court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make
unlimited "independent expenditures" on political campaigns.
2. Citizens United didn't create the doctrine of corporate personhood,
but the decision applied the concept to political speech.
Citizens United is often criticized by progressives for creating the
doctrine of "corporate personhood." This is the idea that, as Mitt
Romney so ham-fistedly put it during the last presidential season,
"corporations are people," entitled to the same rights and privileges as
Actually, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been around sinceconstitutional issues.
the 19th century. Over the years, courts have extended it to recognize
some corporate rights-for example, the right to own property, the
capacity to sue and be sued, and more recently the right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment-but
not others, such as the right against self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment. The doctrine is based on a legal fiction, and, as
always, the Supreme Court remains the ultimate arbiter of the doctrine on
In his majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Kennedy neverreally human beings.
specifically used the word "personhood." Instead, he wrote that the
First Amendment precludes government from discriminating against
political speakers on the basis of their "corporate identity." Relying
heavily on the
1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo-in which an earlier iteration of the
court invoked the First Amendment to strike down monetary ceilings on
independent expenditures made by individuals-Kennedy concluded that
corporations were entitled to the same constitutional deference.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting for himself and Justices
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, explicitly
took the majority to task over the personhood doctrine. In a stinging
90-page rebuke, Stevens reminded the majority that corporations aren't
Unlike natural persons, he charged, corporations "are not themselvesestablished."
members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was
There was no compelling reason, in his view, to accord such nonpersonsfor such purposes.
First Amendment status in the critical arena of campaign spending.
Four years after Citizens United, in 2014, the same five-justice
majority disregarded Stevens' admonitions yet again in the Hobby Lobby
case, recognizing the religious personhood of closely held
corporations and upholding their faith-based right to deny female
employees health insurance for contraception.
3. The Citizens United decision wasn't needed to prevent government
censorship of speech.
Having embraced the fiction of corporations as people, Kennedy and the
Citizens United majority segued easily to the next stage in their
analysis-that lifting the prohibitions on corporate expenditures was
needed to prevent censorship and bans on speech.
Nothing, of course, could have been further from the truth.
Corporations have no messages, political or otherwise, to convey apart
from the messages of the people who run them.
Notwithstanding the strictures of McCain-Feingold, wealthy individuals
were free then, as now, to fund electioneering communications at any
point in an election cycle, limited only by the size of their wallets.
Corporations were also permitted to establish political action committees
At the time it launched its lawsuit, Citizens United operated its ownidentities of their major donors.
PAC-the Citizens United Political Victory Fund-which was, and remains,
registered with the FEC.
But corporate PACs are pesky and sometimes inconvenient vehicles,
subject to regulations that restrict their ability to solicit funds to
management-level employees, shareholders and their families. In
addition, contributions to PACs must be voluntary, and federal law
limits the amount of money an individual can donate to a PAC as well
as the amount a PAC can contribute to any single candidate. PACs are
also required to keep detailed financial records and disclose the
The Kennedy majority found the inconvenience argument persuasive.small.
Rather than require Citizens United to use its PAC to broadcast
"Hillary" or carve out an exception to Section 203 for nonprofits (as
the Stevens dissenters also suggested), the majority chose to alter
the long-established political rules for all corporations, large and
4. Citizens United extended the equation of money and speech andexploration, and the size of the audience reached."
radically restricted the concept of political corruption.
Just as Citizens United did not create the doctrine of corporate
personhood, the decision was not the first Supreme Court ruling to
equate money with political speech. That honor, once again, goes to
Buckley v. Valeo, in which the court held that a "restriction on the
amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication
during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by
restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their
Citizens United, however, expanded the domain of political money fromexpenditures.
individuals to corporations.
Citizens United also drew on Buckley to gut the meaning of political
corruption as a permissible basis for campaign finance regulation.
As in Buckley, the Citizens United majority distinguished between
campaign contributions made directly to candidates and independent
Contribution limits, Kennedy declared, could be justified to preventdangers.
quid pro quo bribery of candidates. Expenditures, however, posed no such
Nor could regulations in either category be warranted by the goal ofcandidates.
leveling the political playing field or countering the distorting
effects of wealth or income inequality in politics.
Last year, the court used the same reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC,
striking down the aggregate biennial limits on money individuals can
contribute directly to federal candidates, parties and PACs.
McCutcheon left intact-at least for the time being-limits on the
amount of money people can give to any single candidate.
5. Citizens United didn't establish super PACs but it gave rise to
them and opened the door to dark money.
Contrary to popular lore, Citizens United didn't explicitly authorize
the creation of super PACs, the expenditure-only entities that cannot
give money directly to candidates but can raise unlimited sums from
individuals, corporations and unions to spend "independently" on behalf of
Super PACs were actually authorized by the D.C. Circuit Court ofcandidates.
Appeals in its March2010 opinion in the case of Speechnow.org v. FEC.
The circuit court, however, based its decision squarely on the legal
framework set out by Citizens United.
Whatever their genesis, super PACs have proliferated since 2010, and
their influence has soared. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, they raised more than $828 million in the 2012 election
cycle. And while well over half of super PAC donations in the cycle
came from a tiny subset of wealthy individuals and families,
for-profit businesses accounted for more than 17 percent of the
aggregate super PAC haul. Thus far this cycle, which is still in its
formative stage, super PACs have amassed more than $300 million.
If anything, the totals on direct corporate political giving are
understated, as businesses are now allowed to donate to 501(c)(4)
nonprofit groups that, unlike super PACs,are not required to publicly
identify their benefactors. Political spending by such "dark money"
organizations skyrocketed from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to more
than $300 million in 2012.
Nor, as an article published last March by the Harvard Law Review
contends, is there any commonsense reason to believe that either super
PAC or dark money expenditures truly are made "independently" of political
Just ask Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, who in 2011 and 2012campaigns.
famously mocked the independent expenditure system in a hilarious set
of late-night comedy sketches.
Or better still, if you can stomach it, listen to Donald Trump, the
self-financed billionaire Republican presidential front-runner, who
insists that every other candidate in the race has been bought and
paid for by political donors.
6. The Supreme Court has established double standards for corporations
and unions.
On the surface, the court's central holding in Citizens United applies
equally to corporations and unions, permitting both under the First
Amendment to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political
In other recent decisions, however, the court has dealt a body blow tointo one enormous "right-to-work"
public employee unions, the last bastion of organized labor in
America, making it harder for unions to collect "fair-share" fees from
government workers who elect on First Amendment grounds not to become
full dues-paying members but nonetheless benefit from union contracts.
As I've written before in this column, a new Supreme Court case that
will be argued this term-Friedrichs v. California Teachers
Association-threatens to end the fair-share system once and for all,
depleting union treasuries and turning the nation's entire public sector
jurisdiction.tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
Corporations face no parallel obstacles or threats from the court.
7. Can anything be done?
In a Bloomberg Politics national poll released last month, "78 percent
of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be
overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision."
The American people may be tired, confused and beaten down, but they
aren't stupid when it comes to the role of money in politics. They
know the system is corrupt and rigged on both sides of the political
aisle, and they want the system changed. The critical question is how.
Apart from symbolic gestures like Proposition 49, what else can we do?
I'll try to provide some answers in part two of this series.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/clinton_wins_sanders_scores_201510
14/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/clinton_wins_sanders_scores_201510
14/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/clinton_wins_sanders_scores_201510
14/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_why_gaza_and_ferguson_are_c
loser_
than_you_think_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_why_gaza_and_ferguson_are_c
loser_
than_you_think_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_why_gaza_and_ferguson_are_c
loser_
than_you_think_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_sanders_won_the_focus_groups_an
d_onli
ne_polls_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_sanders_won_the_focus_groups_an
d_onli
ne_polls_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_sanders_won_the_focus_groups_an
d_onli
ne_polls_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/half_of_worlds_wealth_now_
owned_
by_1_percent_of_population_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/half_of_worlds_wealth_now_
owned_
by_1_percent_of_population_20151014/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/half_of_worlds_wealth_now_
owned_ by_1_percent_of_population_20151014/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://w
ww.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/htt
p://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_po
licy/ C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?sourc
e=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+trut
hdight
truthdig.com/connect