Democrats Mount Another Assault on Citizens United: Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee

January 25, 2011

SHARE

One year ago, in a pre planned, history making fit of incivility, the President of the United States called out members of the US Supreme Court for their decision in the Citizens United case.

The decision allowed companies and unions to give money directly to campaigns without having to go through a 527c “issues” group. Democrats knew that this decision, which reestablished previously settled law on freedom of speech for corporations–and the people who run them–would begin putting business minded people on the same footing as unions and their fund raising apparatus.
As flawed as it is, here’s a wiki description of the decision:

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmarkUnited States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton’s image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2]

Even though unions were under the umbrella of the Citizen’s United decision, public sector and other unions sought to demonize it and used their mouthpiece in chief, Barack Obama, to do it. In the most infamous and naked manner the President did it during last year’s SOTU.
As unions worked against the CU case, they were working on the side with NY Senator Chuck Schumer on their ‘plan B,’ This was called the DISCLOSE Act. This Act would shut up the political speech of corporations (of which unions and news outlets are a part for instance).
The DISCLOSE Act notoriously gave only certain groups the right to give money to campaigns. Most famously the NRA supported the DISCLOSE Act but only after getting exempted from it. But there was another, huge group of people who would be exempted from the Act: unions.
Now they’re back to lie about the Citizens United case again. And there helping them out are Schumer and Senator Harry Reid.

The President was once a lecturer on constitutional law. It’s hard to believe that anyone who appreciates the unique nature of our constitution and the relationship Americans have with their government would want that changed. But he does. Obama has yearned for rewriting the constitution to create “affirmative” rights for Americans (read: limiting rights of individuals and growing government power). He’s lamented that the activist Warren court wasn’t radical enough and wished the constitution redistributed wealth. Here, and here.
It’s hard to overstate the radical nature of the President’s hopes and dreams for the constitution and our country. I believe if we did what the President has suggested that Americans would be turned from citizens to subjects.
The President should know better and he does. That’s why he cannot be trusted with our liberty. Challenge 2012 awaits.
We must politically fight against this man, his unions and minions. They want to shut us up and shut us down and shut us out. They have their friends in the mainstreams, Hollywood, unions, schools and higher ed to carry their message. We have a big job to do.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com