hillary-jebBush, Clinton vow to make it a federal crime to spend money or talk about a politician without the approval of the government.

Jeb Bush is siding with Hillary Clinton on an important issue – banning books and movies that criticize her.

In an interview with CNN the day before the New Hampshire primary, Bush said if elected he would appoint a Supreme Court that would overturn their own 2010 ruling in “Citizens United v. FEC.”

“If I could do it all again I’d eliminate the Supreme Court ruling” Citizens United, said Bush.

“This is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate,” he said.

In other words, Jeb Bush wants to make it a federal crime to give money to a political group that isn’t Jeb Bush.

Bush’s comments drew a quick response from Citizens United’s David Bossie.

“Jeb Bush’s true colors just resurfaced,” Bossie said. “He has embraced the left’s view of the First Amendment. Jeb Bush now agrees with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to limit free speech in America.”

In “Citizens United,” the Court ruled the FEC could not ban the incorporated group from producing a movie that criticized Clinton.

The FEC sought to ban the movie, claiming that spending corporate funds on speech that mentioned a political candidate was an illegal form of corporate political speech.

In its arguments before the Court, the federal government actually argued it had the power to ban books and movies that mention any political candidate, even if only once.

In an exchange with Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, Chief Justice John Roberts asked if it was the government’s view the FEC could outlaw the production of a book by a corporation if the book contained “one use of the candidate’s name?”

“Yes, [the government’s] position would be that [any] corporation could be required to use PAC funds rather than general treasury funds,” Stewart responded.

“And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” asked Roberts.

“If they didn’t, we could prohibit the publication of the book,” Stewart stated.

If you weren’t aware, the government is not allowed to ban books simply because they mention a political candidate.

The Court’s ruling lifted the ban on corporations’ spending their own money on political speech, so long as it is not done in coordination with any candidate.

Liberals have sought to repeal the ruling, which would give federal bureaucrats the power to hunt down and prosecute citizens who criticize political candidates in a manner not approved by the government.

They claim the ruling has opened a floodgate of corporate cash that is deciding elections, despite the fact the leading candidate in each party’s presidential primary is not supported by corporate spending.