Back in September, I posted an article about the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to assess the limits on speech imposed on corporations and unions by the McCain-Feingold Act. The Supreme Court has now ruled on that case in favor of Citizens United, and in a sweeping change in campaign finance laws and legal precedent, has invalidated the provision of McCain-Feingold that prohibited corporate or union advertising close to an election.
As a matter of Constitutional law, I never really understood why this ban had been allowed to stand. Free speech of a person is free speech, whether that person is an individual organic being or a person under the definition of the law. I do have a concern about corporate-sponsored political speech, but my concern is over the potential for foreign forces hostile to the sovereignty of these United States having an equal right to free political speech as those who are citizens of this great land. The SCOTUS did not address this issue because, apparently, no one in the case raised it.
The progressives of this country are crying foul:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “I think it’s an un-American decision. I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today.” – from The Hill
Robert Menendez (D-NJ): “Giving corporate interests an outsized role in our process will only mean citizens get heard less. We must look at legislative ways to make sure the ledger is not tipped so far for corporate interests that citizens voices are drowned out.” – from The Caucus (New York Times’ political blog)
Russ Feingold (D-WI): “The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections.” – from The Caucus (New York Times’ political blog)
Senators Feingold and Schumer have vowed to do what they can to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling through legislation. There is, in my humble opinion, one fairly simple way to accomplish the objective of keeping corporate money out of elections: redefine persons.
- The writers of the Declaration of Independence invoked a fundamental principle of humanity: that the rights of men are unalienable and are bestowed upon us by God.
- I’ve read the Bible – well, most of it – and to my knowledge there is nothing in scripture or in the orthodox (or even unorthodox) Judeo-Christian theology that bestows those unalienable rights to corporations. Man, not God, created corporations and has bestowed the status of personhood, along with its unalienable rights, upon them, and, therefore, man has the “right” to remove that status.
- If Congress votes to remove the legal status of person-hood enjoyed by corporations, then the argument that corporations are afforded an unalienable right to free speech is also removed.
So, to all you progressives (I mean you Marilyn Barrett, Steve Cobble, and the folks at FireDogLake) that dislike the Supreme Court ruling, encourage your lawmaker to simply redefine the legal status of corporations, which will effectively remove their protection under the Bill of Rights, and acknowledge their proper position as a creation of Man and NOT a creation of God.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 1 trackback }