Poking a breathing hole in the duct tape ...

(click on the picture to enlarge)

I thought this cartoon only appropriate ... the president railed, and I mean directly attacked, the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance law. It entirely freed the ability of corporations (and unions although they escaped his ayre) to directly fund political ads for or against a candidate for office. This while his administration has been nearly co opted as a subsidiary of both GE & Goldman Sachs (just google that affiliation with the White House and witness the reams of research from reliable sources).

I have long been a fierce critic of McCain-Fiengold, also affected in this decision, and one of the most offensive, if not flat out Sovietesque, laws within McCain-Feingold was the ban on "negative advertising" within 30 days of the election date. A ridiculous and obvious affront to free speech. It was done under the guise that a candidate wouldn't be afforded the time to respond to distortions or lies, an obnoxious assertion to posit. The entire bill was quickly dubbed "The Incumbent Protection Act." No wonder it had bipartisan support.

Now ... apparently in 2007 a group attempted to get around the 30 day requirement and the caps on corporate donations by producing an unflattering "documentary" on Hillary Clinton (i.e. "it's not an ad, its a film"). The FCC quickly pounced and court cases ensued, which was the basis for the recent decision. From The Wall Street Journal Online, and Fox News, respectively:

"The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film ahead of the Democratic primaries, but the election commission called it an "electioneering communication" subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions ... The ruling, which overturned two precedents, underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority that struck down not only a provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act limiting corporate-funded political ads immediately before federal elections, but also federal laws dating to 1947, and state laws that were older still. Those earlier laws restricted corporations from directly funding political activity from their general treasuries ..."

"In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns.

Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others.

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added.

The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come."

Allow me to summarize my reaction - the idea that my freedom of speech, as an individual, is suddenly suspended upon my free association with another individual - be it via a corporation or union - is asinine in the extreme. To advocate that these groups are, "not a part of society", seems oddly child like in its' notion. What are they then? Boogeymen? Trolls? Minotaurs? The idea that a Justice of the Supreme Court would advocate such a dissent is jaw dropping to me.

Furthermore to curtail the most vital of speech - political speech - in the days and hours when it is most likely to have an impact, such as McCain-Feingold did with its' "30 days out" rule,is an unapologetic violation of our 1st Amendment right. Do I "like" the idea of GE influencing the administration on "green policy", or union's using Joe-six pack's dues to fund an ass of a left wing candidate? Certainly not. But nor do I "like" the burning of the American flag, in fact I find the act both reprehensible and offensive. But the answer to hateful, false or dishonest speech is not censorship - the answer is MORE speech. I would advocate a simple campaign finance law, one page, one paragraph: Any individual or group may contribute as much money, without limit, to any candidate they wish with the requirement of full, real time, disclosure of its' source and amount. Take all the money you'd like from any one (or group) you'd like and allow the voters to judge you as a part of that donation. I simply don't want to give a "little" of my own 1st Amendment rights away in order to satisfy my dislike of groups in whom I oppose; and one would hope that by the time a justice reaches a seat on Supreme Court of the United States he or she would be able to grasp such a basic point.