Sam Seder Makes the Case for Citizens United

In this monologue podcast, Stephen Michael Davis analyzes Sam Seder's stance on the Citizens United Supreme Court case and campaign finance laws. Davis argues that Seder's criticism of the Supreme Court's decision as judicial overreach is inconsistent with Seder's own logic regarding abortion exemptions. Davis contends that the credentialization process required by campaign finance laws acts as a form of censorship, similar to how abortion exemptions can make the procedure practically inaccessible. He supports this argument by referencing Sean Fitzgerald's video, Trevor Burris's analysis, Destiny's debate with Sam Seder, and examples like the films Zero Dark Thirty and Roger and Me. The podcast aims to demonstrate that Seder's position is flawed and that he should acknowledge the de facto censorship inherent in credentialization processes.