The week of January 20, 2010 fared much better than the week of January 20, 2009. Well for conservatives, anyway. While President Obama was celebrating his one year anniversary of being sworn in as the president who promised transparency, nay pledged to uphold the values his predecessor had so ruthlessly shoved aside, conservatives were enacting their revenge. And oh, was it sweet.
First, there was Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts senate race. In a race that will surely go down in the Democrats’ Book of Moments They’d Like to Forget, a Republican was elected in the northern bastion of liberalism. And for Teddy Kennedy’s seat, no less! What a day that was.
With Scott Brown’s election to the Senate came the Republicans 41st vote against health care reform, or what is fondly known as ObamaCare. It was also an overwhelming rejection of bank bailouts, civilian trials for terrorists, auto company takeovers, stimulus packages, tax increases, and individual mandates; basically, President Obama’s entire agenda. If only the president and the people of Massachusetts could have gotten together over a beer, perhaps the outcome would have been different. But then, who knows?
And better yet, while the liberal Congressmen and political pundits were still foaming at the mouths over the stupidity of the people in Massachusetts, coming up with elaborate explanations as to why it was not a referendum on Obama, and promising to still fight the good fight of health care reform, the Supreme Court made its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
The facts of the case are these: Citizens United, a conservative, grass roots advocacy group, produced a documentary entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” Before the documentary could be released however, the FEC decided that it was a piece of political propaganda that supported one candidate over the other, and thus because of McCain-Feingold, was actually illegal.
Citizens challenged that assessment, and the case made its way to the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who ruled with a 5-4 majority that not allowing corporations (like Citizens United) to spend money to advocate for a political candidate is a violation of free speech. And they were right. Free speech is, after all, free speech; no matter where it comes from.
For some, government banning of political documentaries sounds downright Orwellian. To others, it’s necessary in order to “protect democracy,” or something like that. Take for example, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who in response to the Citizens ruling, said it “might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v Sandford.” In other words, free speech for corporations is so bad, it’s actually worse than the Supreme Court deciding that African Americans had no rights that white men were bound to uphold.
Or, consider Obama’s reaction: With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics…This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.” This, coming from the man who bailed out Wall Street, catered health care legislation to the wishes of health insurance companies, struck deals with special interest, and filled his administration with former and current lobbyists.
The truth is that the plight of the “average American” has never been championed as aggressively as it was during Citizens United, and in the years since McCain-Feingold was passed when opponents argued that such laws unconstitutionally expanded government power and inhibited the most basic of freedoms. Apparently though, President Obama’s outrage doesn’t extend to those average Americans who come together to form a corporation.
But the Democrats’ revulsion of the Supreme Court decision and the obliteration of campaign finance reform revolves around the “if we let this happen, the consequences will be dire and all hell will break loose” argument. They used that to pass Cash for Clunkers, the various bailouts, and in blocking Republican attempts at health care reform (as if making people freer will actually result in total chaos and destruction). And look how well all those things have turned out.
Last week the people of Massachusetts, in a stunning display of democracy in action, rejected the proposals of the Democratic Party. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed that yes, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy- not a hindrance or a path to corporate-controlled elections. So for now anyway, it seems as though advocates for limited government finally have cause to celebrate.
But the Democrats’ revulsion of the Supreme Court decision and the obliteration of campaign finance reform revolves around the “if we let this happen, the consequences will be dire and all hell will break loose” argument. They used that to pass Cash for Clunkers, the various bailouts, and in blocking Republican attempts at health care reform (as if making people freer will actually result in total chaos and destruction). And look how well all those things have turned out.
Last week the people of Massachusetts, in a stunning display of democracy in action, rejected the proposals of the Democratic Party. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed that yes, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy- not a hindrance or a path to corporate-controlled elections. So for now anyway, it seems as though advocates for limited government finally have cause to celebrate.
******
Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University. She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.
Loading ...