Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Posted on 01/27/2010 10:12:24 AM PST by Kaslin
From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d'etat in Washington.
The New York Times said what happened "strikes at the heart of democracy."
The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions to spend money on political speech before elections is unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as McCain-Feingold campaign-finance "reform" had bitten the dust. It was long overdue.
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, planned to show on cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. The law said that was illegal.
The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He couldn't have been more clear: "When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
He also said, "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy -- it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people -- political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it."
And, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."
Of course, the "progressive media" condemned the majority for its judicial activism because the ruling overturned two precedents. I thought progressives favored judicial activism and dumping bad precedents. I also thought they favored free speech. Wrong. (To its credit, the ACLU was on Citizen United's side.)
It depends on whose ox is gored.
In condemning the decision, the offended progressives engaged in amazing mental contortions. It "was wrong because nothing in the First Amendment dictates that corporations must be treated identically to people," the Post editorialist wrote.
I guess the writer is unfamiliar with the obscure opening phrase of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." And apparently the outraged progressives don't realize that corporations and unions are associations of individual who have rights. Dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens didn't get it, either.
The media outrage is almost funny. Under McCain-Feingold, media corporations were exempt from the prohibition -- which suits the Washington Post and New York Times just fine. But people with common sense already knew what Justice Kennedy found it necessary to say: "This differential treatment (between media and nonmedia corporations) cannot be squared with the First Amendment."
So now we are being served dire warnings that "corporate money ... may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy." (Are similarly freed wealthy labor unions potted plants?) But the same Post editorial conceded that corporate money was "never lacking in the American political process." So what's the difference?
Besides, as John Samples and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute write: "Before McCain-Feingold, both (corporations and unions) could spend freely on advertising about candidates for federal office. Such spending made up a relatively small part of election-related speech, and no one group dominated ... the political arena."
One need not be a fan of big corporations -- which in today's interventionist economy benefit from many government privileges -- to see that restrictions on anyone's speech are dangerous. A government lawyer last year said that even corporate-funded books favoring or opposing candidates could be prohibited under McCain-Feingold. That should scare progressives -- especially since the Federal Election Commission once had an anti-Bush book written by George Soros under scrutiny.
It is shameful that progressives are willing to throw free speech under the bus in their devotion to big government.
There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Thank God for those of our Supreme Court Justices who take the constitution seriously. Pray this is just the first step in restoring our God-given Liberty!
Wow, have they stuped to making vulgar pitches like this?
Liberalism is merely Communism Light.
At first blush, CFR seems like a reasonable step. An attempt to limit the political influence of wealthy corporations.
The left’s reaction tells me that the Supreme Court made the right decision.
At the most basic level, if the left is for it, there’s a 90% chance I’m against it, and vice versa.
Oppressive power is always a blow to the peoples rights.
There is one problem I have with this decision: that foreign corporations and organizations are able to interfere in US elections.
Imagine Mexican organizations investing millions of dollars in US elections in support of amnesty and dual citizenship for Mexican immigrants. Or, suppose Chinese firms invest millions to influence the US electorate to support no limits (including safety) on the import of Chinese products.
I guess today, when all business is international and businesses owe no loyalty to their nations, this sort of thing is difficult to prevent. However, it worries me.
Idiots hate competition.
On the surface, I am pleased with the SC’s decision. As someone mentioned, they are for it if the liberals are against it....same here. They are griping because our voices may be heard. They have the MSM in their pockets and don’t need corporations to spend money to get their message out. We, on the other hand, need those corporate advertisements to level the playing field.
My concern is that the major networks will refuse to run their ads. I know, I know, they will enjoy the added revenue but I wonder how far the left will go to pay them off to keep the corporate ads shelved. It would be a costly move but when you consider the amount of money BHO had in his campaign coffers, it could sure make a dent in the message getting out. Of course, they would have to deal with unfair treatment if they accept some ads and deny others. Another sticky situation could evolve.
Rand called it "The Aristocracy of Pull".
“There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.”
Amen! That is the only solution. Concentrated power is the mother of corruption!
Bingo! That’s it in a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.