LiberalViewer Tackles “Citizens United v. FEC”

LiberalViewer of YouTube attempts to set the record straight on mischaracterizations of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.”

It appears based on watching this video that the ruling is greatly misunderstood by both sides and I myself am inspired to try and read the whole 180+ page Opinion of the Court.

I am in no way advocating the chilling of free speech by value of it simply coming from a corporation or union.

It is a falsehood to state that this ruling allows for “unlimited contributions to political candidates” and also a point that is not within the primary argument against this ruling, as it did not effect those existing limitations.

I believe, personally, that the argument made that this will benefit non-profit advocacy organizations over private sector special interests has some serious flaws in it, while it is not altogether untrue.

It’s true that some of the confusing regulations surrounding political advocacy have been discarded in this recent decision, but it is the structure and measure of what they have done that is so reprehensible.

Were it to be the case that a corporation had to declare their logo and “I Support This Ad” with the CEO standing there; then this decision would be far different in implications to our political process.

This logic that major multinational corporations will for some reason “not go there” with political issues is true to a certain extent but it precludes the simple truth that when seeing itself as threatened, as the insurance companies did the early days of the Health Care Debate, they will spend whatever they can as fast as they can to flood us with … media. Media like television ads.

How quickly we forget as a nation, as a people, that Sen. John Kerry was literally “slimed” out of his equal opportunity at the democratic process in a bid for president no less by what we now call “swing voting” but if you track this story out it was a bunch of frauds who demeaned their personal character in a outright smear campaign. One of them lives right here in Santa Cruz, California and just like the Bush administration itself they are taking no responsibility for this in public.

How easy it will be now for a nameless silent corporate partner to just bankroll a bunch of TV ads either pro or con for a candidate that had policies that just might ask them to give a little back after they take so much from the environment, for instance. If understand that McDonald’s is Pro-McCain, just as a random example, then many of my concerns go away. But as it stands the Sierra Club, the NRA and the example of the video clip Microsoft could all wildly flood a campaign with media while grassroots money and dedicated social advocates of any position would be overshadowed.

Also this argument that money doesn’t win elections is also partly false. Money is not enough, as the examples of Ross Perot and Mitt Romney illustrate, but the 2008 Campaign for the White House was in part decided on the dollars and cents. Of course you need the solid candidate, as the Democrats held with Obama, to seal the deal but my studies in Political Science completely disagree with the scoffing of this notion of looking at the financial impact and earnings to get the best picture.

As I stated before, I believe I may have to read this entire decision before I am totally satisfied I understand it fully.

For now, I am strongly standing with the words of President Obama in his State of the Union address calling this decision a means by which we will “open the floodgates” to foreign special interests and corporate lobbyist influence over the actual results of our elections themselves.

I feel both the SCOTUS and perhaps LiberalViewer as well have concerned themselves too much with entities that deserve very little concern or express protections of the court while neglecting to see the ramifications of said decision on the people that truly represent democracy at it’s core.

To put it plainly: this appears a “open door” policy in terms of slash-and-burn negative political ads at the end of a campaign cycle to force a candidate to lose based on hyperbole, as we have seen before in politics. Slime works, and I as I understand it the SCOTUS just ruled in favor of slime in our elections.

============================

UPDATE!

Russ Feingold at CounterPunch.org explains what Sam Donaldson was speaking about that I referred to as “inaccurate” in the above piece.

I was under the impression that he was saying that Soft Money limits are now gone under this ruling but in fact it he was speaking to the issue of spending directly out of the treasury without limit.

***Thanks to Paul J. Rourke for bringing this to my attention and providing the link.

Advertisements

Republican Obstructionism in Health Care Reform

I see these God-forsaken ads running on my blog about how people are supposed to “Stop Obama-care Now!” and I would like to metaphorically spit on this nonsense once and for all. Anyone attaching the misnomer of “socialized medicine” or using the phrase “Obama-care” at this stage has already labeled themselves as part of the partisan agenda weakening this country from within everyday.

I contend that if we witnessed these same bills moving through Congress proposed by Republicans instead of Democrats that many of the same harsh opponents of reform would flip-flop their stance entirely. Almost anyone questioned on their position in the media or otherwise states that they think there should be “some kind” of reform.

I am left to think that a vast majority of the resistance to the passage of these measures is simply playing politics on behalf of Republicans, in that if President Obama passes a successful humanitarian bill that enhances the lives of so many American families the political consequences to their party will be too severe to manage.

At least the televised and media punditry are motivated by this end, if noting else.

This Party of No” mentality is dangerous to us all. If anyone has a valid objection or concern by all means they should make themselves known. But when a person simply stands on the legs of right wing talking points and shaky numbers I tend to think they would be a strong advocate for “McCain-care” if the universe where all flipped upside down.

Dispelling the Myths of ‘Secret Societies’

Whatever ‘facts’ and ‘patterns’ that conspiracy theorists claim to see in global economic and political events the burden of proof remains on the people presenting this idea to the public. Every logical retort and request for scientific evidence of an active ‘secret assembly’ between geopolitical leaders across the world and markets is met with vague facts and illogical responses. The method of debunking this is, in view, best done with an example of how easy it is to fabricate these myths by creating my own:

:: The Creed ::

The Creed are as old as human history. They met in secret to agree on principals and social standards at the beginning of every human society; their numbers dictated by bloodline. Every person you see today in the media or in politics belongs to the Creed. They set the standards of speech, manners and ethics in every society. They make history and all political movements out of there desires and whims, on any given day.

The Creed is sworn to silence over this. They will never admit that when you didn’t hear them speak that they were speaking with another of the Creed. You can’t get any journalist nor academic nor politician to ever admit to the truth of the Creed.

Only the just and righteous common man, like myself, may bring you this ultimate truth. Only we the repressed and abandoned by our tyrannical government could possibly know this truth and accept it into our beings.

::::::::::::::::::::::

However, I am not without realization of what this means to present this idea to someone who has already invested themselves into these theories and possibly even money into the entire conspiracy. I am essentially saying that they were duped.

This no doubt stings and makes some rationale toward a person being defensive. But the fact remains that any person subscribing to this illogical thinking is being mislead by members of a ’creed’ that makes money from drumming up people’s fears about government.

Let there increased profits in this atmosphere of political hate burn their fingertips.

There is no need to plant a ‘crisis garden’ or build a ‘fallout shelter’ now, than there ever was in any previous scare-tactic campaign. These groups seek to use the use of non-hybridized seed cultures as political tool but it is simply fact that non-modified food is better than modified. It has nothing to do with anything except food quality.

In conclusion, while figures like George Noory of Coast to Coast AM support the theory of a New World Order Conspiracy with dignity and respect the majority of the proponents are hostile, illogical men like Alex Jones. The Anti-Obama partisan Jerome Corsi and Jones tried to get Noory to denounce the presidency of Barack Obama on air. They were rightly rebuffed in this attempt to demean the career of George Noory with their disrespectful lies. By ignoring the issue the mass media only allows the whole matter to get out of hand. I would like to see a deep exposé on both Jerome Corsi and Alex Jones done by a reputable news agency.