(March 20, 2010 - Photo by Astrid Riecken/Getty Images North America)
The House of Representatives passed this week legislation which it has deemed a “Fix” to campaign finance policy which has been at the center of partisan debate since the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year. The ruling resulted in the Left crying foul painting the decision as a victory for big business and a threat to Free Speech. Ignoring the reality that the decision was equally beneficial for big labor, many on the Left have taken the position that the current system allows big money to play an unfair role in the political forum placing Free Speech in jeopardy for helpless Americans unable to compete with the overreaching voice of corporate America.
Well the “Fix” is in folks….
So, in typical big government knows best fashion, the House took it upon itself this week to fashion a new system of regulations that would reign in the “injustices” left in the wake of the “controversial” Supreme Court ruling.
What was the result you ask? A new system that would handpick which special interests were allowed to infringe upon Free Speech and which would be barred from doing so – that is if you are of the mindset that any of this is in any way a threat to Free Speech in the first place.
I for one am not. In a perfect world… I would advocate for a system where any and all contributions were required to be disclosed by ALL candidates. Let the wretched pigs take money from whomever they so choose. Just make them tell the American People exactly who it is that they are in bed with. That said, such a level of disclosure would never be popular in the People’s House now would it? So this is what those brilliant individuals have come up with.
The DISCLOSE ACT (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Election) as it has been coined, in part, would do the following…
Some corporations – those accepting TARP bailout funds, federal contractors, or foreign corporations such as BP – would be banned from spending on US elections altogether.
Here’s what the self-described Voice of the Left has to say about the bill..
But the bill that Congress passed 219-206 Thursday sidesteps many of these concerns. In fact, by keeping the exemption for the NRA, it assures that the nation’s largest special interest group, representing those who make money manufacturing and selling guns, will be able to spend its big dollars, as well as be a conduit for other big dollar donors, without having to reveal contributor names. This gives this special money group an unfair advantage over just about every other.
HuffPo doesn’t like it??? Interesting. I guess that NRA bailout was pretty painful for those guys over there. But you know the NRA didn’t get a carve-out here without some tit for tat….
House Democratic sources say the goal was to exempt a handful of the biggest and most well-established advocacy groups, but it turned out that only the NRA met all the criteria. And some liberal Democrats balked at supporting a bill seen as giving special treatment to the gun group, even after the loophole was expanded to exempt smaller groups such as the left-leaning Sierra Club and the ecumenical Humane Society and AARP — all of which say they did not seek the loophole treatment.
So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably the primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government garunteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns.
Now I’m starting to see a clearer picture here. Free Speech can only be infringed upon by big business and small non-profit. Those really really really big non-profits serve a noble purpose and their existence for more than 10 years absolutely speaks to the credibility as worthwhile organizations.
Such a distinction is what makes this legislation absolutely laughable. This logic lends itself to the following ridiculous conclusion… Big Business is a threat to Free Speech because of its reach and means of involving itself in a partisan fashion. Big Non-Profit – equally capable in means and reach is not a threat – because it is “non-partisan”(???) even though Big Business stands to alienate half of its consumer base by picking a side in ANY election? Doesn’t the capitalist model restrict Big Business’s spending – or at least make sure it hands out the bucks with relative equality to both sides?
What world do we now live in… in these United States that the special interest is now elevated to such an impartial and noble enterprise? How is it that Free Speech has become such a convoluted and marginalized term that Congress thinks it can pick and choose who has the Right to exercise it?
Congressman John Boehner released this statement Wednesday in response to the bill clearing the House…
“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’ It’s first for a reason. Freedom of speech is the basis of our democracy. The purpose of this bill, plain and simple, is to allow Democrats to use their Majority in this House to silence their political opponents. This is a backroom deal to shred our Constitution for raw, ugly, partisan gain. “With this misguided bill, Democrats would restrict free speech and violate the First Amendment. But not for everyone. This bill would muzzle small businesses but protect labor unions. It allows the Humane Society to speak freely, but not the Farm Bureau. It would protect the AARP’s rights, but not 60-Plus. And lastly it would protect the National Rifle Association but not the National Right to Life. The NRA is carved out and gets a special deal in this bill. The NRA is all about protecting the Second Amendment, but apparently its leaders don’t care about protecting the First Amendment. That’s very disappointing. “Since the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the First Amendment, Democrats have maintained their bill would ‘apply equally across the board’ to corporations, labor unions and advocacy organizations alike. Instead, they produced a bill full of loopholes designed to help their friends while silencing their political opponents. We in this House take an oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.’ A vote for this bill violates that oath.”
The bill narrowly passed in a 219- 206 tally (213 needed).
REPUBLICANS VOTING YES ON THIS BILL….
There is good news – and then there’s more good news – regarding this bill however. First, any Republican Senator who votes “yes” on this bill when it reaches that House will be excommunicated by the conservative Right. Any bill that pays this much homage to special interest while limiting the inclusion of the private sector would be a death sentence for anyone even remotely plugged into the ideological Right to sign on for. As RedState aptly points out… Don’t immediately start thinking John McCain. I know, the thought crossed my mind as well, but he’s already made a statement in opposition to the bill. The threat of finally losing an election appears to have brought our resident changeling over to the Right just a bit.
Let us pray that this thing is truly dead on arrival when it hits the Senate. This is very scary business folks. Special interest gaining exemptions from regulations aimed at curbing Free Speech infringement? Who could even dream this stuff up?
[...] campaign system, but before I go further, I wanted to include a quote from T. Christopher at Republican Redefined. I think he sums it up nicely. Well the “Fix” is in [...]
I think you have summed it up very nicely, T. Christopher and I agree with your sentiment about disclosure 100%.
I am not seeing that this legislation infringes on free speech, but the exclusions and exemptions that are included for the NRA, the unions, etc. etc. remind me of the back room deals that were negotiated during the health care reform debate. As I said in my own post about this, the law of unintended consequences may come into play here and I am not sure the results will be all that favorable to the American people.
Domo Arigato Mr Roboto…
Republican Redefined says when it comes to the DISCLOSE Act the cure is worse than the disease….
Remember, a closed mouth gathers no foot.–Steve Post