One of the continuing refrains one hears from Liberals as a result of the Supreme Court decision this week demolishing the lunacy of McCain/Feingold is that "corporations are not people" and that they are "created fictions" that should not enjoy Constitutionally protected rights--only rights that are bestowed upon them by the people acting through its legislature.
Here's a brief take-down of that view.
The plain truth of the matter is that McCain/Feingold was just the latest incursion on the free exercise of speech by the campaign finance crowd who ultimately recognize that it is FREE EXERCISE that hazards many of their plans. Read this article in the latest edition of National Affairs. It's longish for the short attention span crowd, but it gives a fine historical overview to the growth of the campaign finance movement--and how more often than not, those who sought to limit money in politics were seeking to do so in order to diminish the impact of political foes--or to save their own seats.
In the article, author Bradley Smith posits the following: What would be the reaction throughout the country to Congressional attempts to restrain the "Free Exercise" of religion clause by limiting the amount of money that could be given to churches, or by limiting the ability of church boards to make decisions or spend money on activities designed to advance their mission? In these cases, it is boards/groups of people acting together with a purpose and their right to do so is in no way diminished by associating with like-minded individuals. Why is it considered fair game to penalize individuals acting together under a corporate mantle who wish to exercise their freedom of speech?
As for the journal from which the article comes--National Affairs is quite simply the most intellectually stimulating public policy journal I have ever read. Coming at us as it does from a center-right perspective, the first two issues of this journal have put to bed any sense that there is a lack of policy entrepreneurship on the right. The right is alive with ideas, and there's no better place to survey them than this journal.
IN THE MAIL: How to Live Forever….
48 minutes ago
Posts
6 comments:
Now that I'm on record as supporting this decision, where would I like to see legislative action to refine it? I'd like to see legislation proposing that the decision reached applies ONLY to corporations incorporated on US soil. Our liberal friends, who would deny American corporations the right to exercise political speech, have no problem extending the full palette of civil rights to non-US citizens who wage illegal war on the US. I support US civil rights for US citizens and US corporations.
Bryan,
Love your blog, of course.
Having just finished my Series 63 securities exam, I can assure you that legally corporations are 'persons.' Period. It is irrefutable.
Further, the idea that Congress can pass a law outlawing a certain publication or book and that such a law would be legal (as argued by the Obama Administration) shows what happens when politicians are not watched. The 'up is down and down is up' logic was astonishing. And the MSM attempt to refute the logic is simply flabbergasting. Just substitute the word "black" or "women" or "newspaper" for corporation and gauge the reaction. McCain-Feingold was a travesty and my major reason for disliking McCain. I am glad the Supreme Court finally unscrewed themselves on this subject.
Thanks for linking to a good article on the subject.
There are only two options, private money to fund campaigns or government money to fund campaigns. If the government funds elections who ever is in power will remain in power almost always.
But it's not even restricting corporation's free speech, it's restricting SOME corporation's free speech. Last time I looked the big news outfits were pretty darn big. Was their speech effected? Of course not.
And the corollary of your title, Citizens Organized As Corporations Are Citizens Too. That includes Finance Corporations, Health Insurance Corporations and, yes, even Tobacco Corporations. For the President of this nation of citizens to foment such disdain, or even join in on whatever disdain their may already have been, against his fellow citizens seems most undemocratic and unpresidential. And un-American. Frankly, I'm fed up with it.
Mike--nice to see you here!
Be they individuals, people or corporations be they foreign or domestic, the ultimate decision is that of the voters. Are we attempting to legislate who may express their opinions in hope of influencing these voters?
Should we institute an intelligence test to determine if a potential voter is intelligent enough to separate the wheat of fact from the chaff of propaganda? I think not.
Post a Comment