*Slaps Forehead*
I keep reading over and over and over again, “right-wingers want corporations to have the same rights as a person!” In fact, in some cases, people are being pretty funny about it (hat tip to A.C. Kleinheider at Nashville Post Politics).
I don’t know how many other ways to say it before I start telling people to put their babies in their blenders: the Constitutional question in this case had nothing to do with defining an individual or a corporation, or positively conferring the rights of one on the other. It also had little to do with campaign contributions as free speech in the sense that Buckley v. Valeo addressed this question (although, as I have argued previously, that precedent is certainly important to the way people ought to be thinking about this case).
The chief Constitutional question in this case is whether or not McCain-Feingold was an overreach by the United States Congress, as determined by the restrictions imposed on the First Branch by the Bill of Rights. Once again, just for drill (emphasis added by me):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you refuse to accept this as the win for America that it is, and are still seething from all the frothy-mouthed pseudo-populist nonsense that OFA blasts out in its weekly emails, then I don’t know if anyone can help you. And you might want to think about moving.
Hi George, long time no see. Hope you’re doing well man. But…
“If you refuse to accept this as the win for America that it is…”
Are you serious?
I’ll be the first to admit that McCain-Feingold was a failure with regard to it’s promised “purpose”
but surely you must admit that the idea behind it (limiting the influence of special interest money in D.C.) was and still is as popular and necessary as ever with the American people.
There is a silver lining in this SCOTUS decision though, and it’s that it puts campaign finance reform back on the table, front and center. The congress will have to give it another go, and (god forbid) maybe they’ll get it right this time.
What you’re talking about here is precisely why this is such a win. Anytime the Congress is sent back to the drawing board, it’s a win for America. If you want to talk about the more practical implications of the decision (i.e. the way campaign ads are financed within 30 days of an election), consider this: a no-name independent running for office in TN-5 who has a good idea, but cannot self-fund, can now appeal to other sources of campaign revenue. Everyone tends to look at the positive gains of McCain-Feingold – i.e. the perception of a more honest and transparent electoral process – but nobody looks at it from the angle that many of its provisions were incumbency protections – and if you ask me, that was by design. It garnered support across the aisle because Members knew they’d be somewhat insulated from (probably) more qualified challengers. This is another reason this is such a win – regular turnover of the legislature is the best way to disinfect government.
I totally understand the populist argument here, and I totally agree with James Madison’s expressed worry about the “mischief of factions” as written in the Federalist Papers; I just think there are some serious straw men involved in the debate that need to be tossed out. I also think the President has done a terrible job (or masterful job, depending upon one’s assessment of his political skill) in framing the debate. He and his political team are responsible for 95% of the misinformation floating around out there about Citizens United v. FEC.