If you can’t dazzle em’ with brilliance, baffle em’ with b– s— !

Reuters is declaring today that Hillary Clinton is proposing a new platform plank, ‘campaign finance reform‘, to rescue her increasingly flailing candidacy.
However, as much as I detest writing about Clinton, this proposal is so fraught with nonsense it deserves to be highlighted.

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton will propose a slate of campaign finance reform measures on Tuesday aimed at limiting political donations by corporations and large donors and increasing transparency in election spending.
Clinton, who is seeking the nomination to be the Democratic candidate in the November 2016 presidential election, identified measures she would pursue if she becomes president.

Among them are rules requiring greater disclosure of political spending including by publicly traded companies and U.S. government contractors and a program that would provide matching funds for small donations to presidential and congressional candidates.
“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans,” Clinton said in a statement issued by her campaign.
“Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”  (link)

 
That’s the lead-in to this next dose of incredulous nonsense.  Check this out:

[…]  Clinton also plans to call for an overturning of the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. It allowed corporations and individuals to spend unlimited money for political advocacy through independent political action committees so long as they do not coordinate with candidates.
That ruling has become a flashpoint on the campaign trail, drawing criticism from other candidates as well, such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who has pressured Clinton on her left.
Overturning the ruling would require new Supreme Court justices as well as amending the Constitution, according to Clinton’s plans, and both are fraught with uncertainty. (link)

Amending the constitution as part of Campaign Finance reform?  Require new Supreme Court justices?  Good grief, talk about pandering.  Neither of those are factually needed for campaign finance reform…. heck, you don’t really even need legislation.
The Republican and Democrat parties could just as easily pass “rules” which amend current allowable campaign donations/contributions.  Similar to the rules they hid inside the CRomnibus bill in 2014.
If the RNC or DNC wanted to stop “outside group” spending, they could simply tell the “outside groups” to stop spending.  Or, if they wanted to get more technical with it, congress could pass simple transparency laws applying the same publicly available record-keeping to Super-PACs as they do to traditional campaign contributions.
Easy peasy.  None of this has anything to do with needing new Supreme Court justices or changes to the Constitution’s first amendment.
Good grief, just how naive are Clinton voters?
Wait, never mind.