United Citizens v. FEC

All of the lefty hang-wringing over the decision in United Citizens vs. FEC is missing a big point: corporations as they currently exist are a product of government intervention in the economy. They only exist because of the government in the first place. Fight about band-aid solutions all you want, but there's that one glaring fact right in front of you. I say let's let businesses decide for themselves (and only themselves) what kind of organization is best, and not grant them any spurious protections. That'll do a lot more than any kind of campaign finance law.

That's not all. Worried that corporations might exert undue influence in election cycles? The System is run by elites, and no matter what the laws are will always primarily serve the elites. Did you receive any of the hundreds of billions of dollars of bailout money, or did it all go to large corporations or other branches of the government? Without being freed to boost their interests as they now are, corporations still won that one. With our government, they never lose.

Share this

Bailout Money

Actually, I did get some of the bailout money. I bought my first house last year so I got the tax credit.

Government hands out largesse to big and small alike.

Corporations and First Amendment

All of the lefty hang-wringing over the decision in United Citizens vs. FEC is missing a big point: corporations as they currently exist are a product of government intervention in the economy. They only exist because of the government in the first place.

THIS IS TRUE - AND IN FACT, THEY ARE DESIGNED UNDER INCORPORATION LAWS AND THE TAX CODE TO MINIMIZE RISK EXPOSURE AND MAXIMIZE PROFITS - THEIR SOLE PURPOSE. HUMAN BEINGS ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE NOT ACCORDED THE SAME PROTECTIONS OR TAX ADVANTAGES, AND ARE CERTAINLY NOT DESIGNED FOR THE SINGLE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY. GIVEN THAT, HOW CAN THE COURT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF A CORPORATION ARE IN ANY WAY RELATED OR SIMILAR OR CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF HUMANS? CORPORATIONS ARE MONEY MAKING VEHICLES, THEY ARE NOT RELIGIOUS, PHILOSOPHICAL, INTELLECTUAL BEINGS - AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE THAT A CORPORATION WILL BE IMPRISONED, CONSCRIPTED AGAINST ITS WILL, FORCED TO BECOME A SLAVE, BARRED FROM PRACTICING THE RELIGION OF ITS CHOICE, OR ANY OTHER ISSUE THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE SO-CALLED "STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS" ON THE RIGHT? OR DO THEY NOW BELIEVE THAT MADISON AND JEFFERSON WERE LOSING SLEEP OVER CORPORATE RIGHTS WHEN THEY FOUGHT IN THE REVOLUTION THEN DRAFTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT? I CAN ALMOST HEAR THE CONVERSATION ON THE FRONT LINES: "MR. JEFFERSON! GIVE MICROSOFT AND IBM LIBERTY OR GIVE THEM DEATH!" HISTORY WILL NOT BE KIND TO THIS RADICAL SUPREME COURT, AND CURRENTLY IT SURELY HAS REDEFINED THE MEANING OF LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.

I say let's let businesses decide for themselves (and only themselves) what kind of organization is best, and not grant them any spurious protections. That'll do a lot more than any kind of campaign finance law.

NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS . .. .