« survival resources | Main | Numchuck case up for cert. conference »
Argument in Citizens United Case
ScotusBlog says the Court appears ready to strike down some precedent, ruling that allowed bans on corporate campaign contributions (and which thus gave rise to PACs as separate entities). One argument against those rulings is simply that a corporation may simply represent an effort by a large number of nonwealthy people to equal the electoral influence of one very wealthy one.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
I must have overlooked something somewhere along the line, but aren't the NY Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, ad nauseum, all corporations. Maybe there's something I missed in the Constitution that allows the government to decide which corporations are members of the press and protected by the 1st Amendment and which aren't.
There is already a double standard. George Soros freely funds persuasive speech, "progressive" candidates, etc. from his vast personal fortune.
The only recourse (as GEEKWITHA45 said) that the "little guy" has to be heard in a political agora dominated by the likes of Soros and his lavishly-funded organizations, is to create similar advocacy groups.
Of course, MOVE ON, ACORN and other "progressive" advocacy groups, as well as the Greek chorus of old media, are not restrained.
As long as one viewpoint dominates the debate through a monopoly there is no effective free speech.
Indeed.
Having been involved in the creation of citizen issue advocacy groups, I can attest to the matter.
I consider it a matter of the implementation of our right to Assemble, which does not mean "gather with your buddies for trivial social purposes."
The simple chain of causality is this:
Citizens who wish to be effective in their political goals must be able to do more than gather round the fireplace at the gun club in a bitch & moan festival. They must gather and spend resources to achieve their goals.
That gets you right there: For all practical purposes, you need a bank account, and *all* bank accounts are tied to either individual human or corporate entities.
Since no one is going to write checks out to "Joe Blow", rightfully fearing fraud and the fueling of Joe Blow's retirement and/or crack fund, that means that you need a corporate entity... when then subjects you to all sorts of regulation and liabilities.
Like buying a gun in New Jersey, people think it's easy, simple and risk free ~until~they~try~it~.