Since the Supreme Court ruling reversing the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and the unconstitutional provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, are of a First Amendment disposition, prefacing this and all related articles with the First Amendment would be prudent:
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Emphasis is mine, but as complex and esoteric as some prevaricated constitutional pseudo-scholars, and the hand-wringing Leftists who just lost their patent on wholesale vote purchasing by this Supreme Court decision, the first five words of the First Amendment should always set the pace for any First Amendment discussion, argument, law, or decision.
Special interest money, union money, and the entirety of the mainstream media's astonishing unvetted support for Obama were paramount to his being elected. It took Obama only two short days to formulate an opinion lambasting the Supreme Court's ruling restoring First Amendment rights to corporations regarding how they
choose to spend
their money in the political arena on a scale that the Left has enjoyed for years. Obama said he is "working with Congress on a forceful bipartisan response." Now he wants to work with the entire Congress as opposed to just the Left-Wing of Congress, this after coming off what has turned out to be a disastrous first year of working exclusively with the Left-Wing of Congress, and a couple of Republican senators he could purchase with taxpayer money (Snow and Collins). His bipartisan cajoling will be for naught for two reasons:
- He spent the entirety of his first year completely spurning the Republicans from the legislation process.
- The restoration of First Amendment rights to corporations has evened a very one-sided advantage the Democrats have enjoyed over Republicans.
It was a correct decision, and has leveled the playing field.
The case:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to make a movie titled
Hillary: The Movie, which was none too pleasing about Hillary Clinton, and release it during her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. Citizens United, being a legal corporation, was disallowed under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002, and
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce of 1990, to exercise their free speech.
Barack Obama responded to the Supreme Court Ruling with the same benighted and illiterate constitutional comprehension that has decorated his every comment regarding the United States Constitution as far back as his prattle has been documented and continued it through his State of the Union Address. Before Obama could again brandish his unconditional lack of decorum and impropriety by admonishing the Supreme Court justices in attendance by speaking with a very forked tongue about their decision, he took the liberty to solidify his wholesale ignorance of the Constitution. He stated: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal...." The we are "created equal" phrase was a wonderful touch. Unfortunately, it is not "enshrined in our Constitution" as Obama stated. Perhaps if Obama knew the history of this country and its founding documents, he would know that the phrase is the start of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Barack Obama's reaction to the
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, for the very sake of humanity, deserves to be broken down into the flagrant affirmations of his ignorance, obliviousness, obtuseness, of who he is, how he became president, who created him, and his general inability to connect the dots.
He promises to fight a Supreme Court decision on political donations by corporations and unions. He stated that he couldn’t “think of anything more devastating to the public interest." Perhaps he can't think of anything more "devastating to the public interest," but I can, and apparently so did the state of Massachusetts last week by electing Scott Brown over Obama acolyte Martha Coakley, by replacing Leftist incumbent New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with conservative Chris Christie, and by conservative Bob McDonnell winning the Virginia Governorship. And according to the latest polling numbers, more than half of the citizens of the United States have come to realize this past year what could be “more devastating to the public interest," and that is Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most of the Democrats skulking in elected office.
"Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections." Perhaps after having his health care reform agenda systemically rejected by the most liberal state in the Union last week, Obama, being in a stupor from said rejection, and having to rewrite his State of the Union Address sans health care destruction, may have really believed that a century of election law was reversed. But then again, maybe he lied. What the Supreme Court did was reverse the McCain-Feingold Act that included all corporate spending. This was an amendment added to election law by the McCain-Feingold Act. The court did not reverse a century old ruling that prohibits directly sending money from corporations to candidates. It kept intact the ban on “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” by foreign corporations The Citizens United ruling was limited to the funding of speech by corporations attacking or agreeing with a political candidate. The decision really was that simple.
"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't."
For the love of Pete, if it is possible to clinically suffer from a phobia of truths so severe one might actually spontaneously combust from speaking the truth, Obama has been summarily diagnosed. George Soros, just during the 2004 Bush election, spent $400 million to influence the election. Soros has solicited foreign money to influence U.S. elections. Obama spent $847 million on the election to McCain's $550 million.
The major differences:
- Obama outspent McCain by $300 million.
- All of McCain's contributions can be accounted for.
But within Obama’s $850 million are $366,708.22 from China, $25,259.00 from the United Arab Emirates, $7,062.60 from Russia, $6,716.28 from Saudi Arabia, $6,350.00 from Indonesia, $5,000.00 from Kenya, and $1,750.00 from Egypt. The source of almost half of his donations cannot be accounted for.
"The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” Again, Obama seems to be cheating death by spontaneous combustion by telling the truth. Immediately upon taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order entitled “Ethics Commitments” that would "close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely.” This is the most sweeping ethics reform in history... blah, blah, blah. Two days-- 48 hours-- after signing the most sweeping ethics reforms in history that shut the door on lobbyists, Obama signed a waiver overriding his Executive Order to hire his first lobbyist, and has subsequently filled almost the entirety of his cabinet with lobbyists or cabinet members with strong lobbyist ties. There quite possibly could be more lobbyists working for Obama than working within the District of Columbia.
He has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision. Now Obama wants bipartisanship with the Republicans. Obama wants bipartisanship from the conservative wing of the Congress to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling that just evened the playing field between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Supreme Court just restored the 1st Amendment rights to corporations to spend their money as they please to voice their opinions about certain political candidates, positive or negative, who would have far reaching effects on the corporations. And for this, Obama wants the help of the entire Congress to implement some form of legislation to usurp the Supreme Court decision.
Obama stated that the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence, and protect patients from insurance company abuses-- key elements of his domestic agenda. Obama is correct that it will be harder to pass counterproductive legislation, as he has witnessed, but his reasoning is wrong. He has not, and will not, be be able to pass negative impacting financial reforms, close tax loopholes that only punish the industrious who structure their taxes according to laws written by Congress, decimate the American economy with the Democrat’s version of energy independence, and destroy the entire medical industry with the Democrat's version of health care reform. What has made it harder, and going forward, almost impossible, was demonstrated by the Democrat's astounding losses in several key elections renouncing Barack Obama and the Democratic Party's unacceptable agenda. Obama’s support for his agenda enjoys very little public support, and that is what will make it hard to implement. Connect the dots.
"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans. And we don't intend to." Again, another interesting assessment of powerful interest groups considering he hosted a health care legislation writing party in the White House with labor unions, AKA, powerful interest groups, to write legislation, instead of the legislators that were elected by the voices of everyday Americans.
"It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done." Sorry Obama, but you are late to the party by exactly two key Republican Governors, one very key Senator, the graveyard of socialist legislation decaying at the White House doorstep, and the majority of the American citizens. The damage is in the process of being repaired, the damage that was done on November 2008, with the election of you, Barack Obama, and the commanding yet squandered Democratic majority in the Congress. This country started being systematically repaired with several major governor's races in November, and as recently as last week's Massachusetts Senate race, by repudiating your and the Democratic agenda.
So who really won? The Bill of Rights won and so did the citizens of the United States. Sure, a corporation is not a citizen. It does not have a brain either. It is formed, operated, maintained, capitalized, and its opinions, be they political, are created by bona fide United Stated citizens--officers and shareholders-- who possess all the constitutional rights afforded by the United States Constitution.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in the Citizens United case, profoundly summarizing not only what can be said, but what can be heard: "… 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."
Analyzing Obama's response to the ruling only further substantiates his vainglorious persona, while still seeking validation, relevance, and the subsequent rescuing from the incoherent quagmire in which he has been ensconced since November 2008.
The argument that state-created entities (corporations), should not have the same rights as individuals is baseless because, thanks to the intrusiveness of the Democratic faction of the federal government, from the moment we are born, we are regulated, documented, stamped, registered, controlled, in this system, in that system, approved for this, approved for that, rejected for this, rejected for that, etc., etc. Haven't we all just become state-created entities, with just semantics separating
we the people from corporations?
