Citizens Untied

I’ve ever understood the hue and cry among the Left over Citizens United. It seem to me a lot of it is based on misinformation. They think that Citizens opened the door for big evil corporations to make massive policial campaign contributions. But that was already legal. Citizens was a very specific case where a non-profit political group made a movie about Hillary Clinton and were forbidden to show it 60 days before an election. It was an issue of free speech, not money. The same laws used to block Hillary: The Movie could and have been used to shut up unions, environmental groups and minority rights groups. But aided by a media who want to ensure that they are the only ones who can tell us what to think, this bullshit narrative has take hold.

Nancy Pelosi and several other Democrats have thrown their weight behind the “People’s Rights Amendment”. This has no chance of passing, none. It’s a bone to the Far Left. But it’s a remarkable insight into how these people think. Here’s the text:

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

This is an extremely bad amendment. As Volokh points out, the wording is liberal enough that it would strip almost any non-individual of their basic rights, including churches, corporate newspapers, all non-profits and basically anyone they want:

Congress could ban speech about elections and any other speech, whether about religion, politics, or anything else. It could also ban speech in viewpoint-based ways.

State legislatures and local governments could do the same. All of them could seize corporate property without providing compensation, and without providing due process. All corporate entities would be stripped of all constitutional rights

Except the compliant media, of course.

The idea that we the people have individual rights but that we the people can not pool our resources to exercise those rights is insane. This isn’t about evil money-grubbing corporations. This is about any group — from the NRA to the NEA to the NBA — exercising their rights.

You will rarely find a more perfect distillation of the hatred that our political class have for basic freedom. What pisses them off about Citizens is not money in politics or corporate rights or anything like that. What pisses them off is the idea of people saying nasty things about them. Had Hillary: the Movie tried to go through Hollywood or the MSM, it would have been stopped by the politicians’ dog washers. How dare the citizens try to get their message out some other way!

They despise our freedom. And they more than happy to take advantage of the anti-corporate hysteria of the Left to abridge it. No politician who supports this amendment should be allowed anywhere near power.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    “natural persons”

    So, in-vitro babies have no rights, correct?

    The very concept of what constitutes a “natural person” is rife with opportunity for multiple interpretations – only an idiot or someone out to fuck people over would use such ambiguous phrasing.

    Thumb up 3

  2. mrblume

    They despise our freedom.

    You’re beginning to sound like Alex. The ‘corporations are people’ narrative of Citizens United that the left has come up with is certainly confused. But not any more confused than “Obama is a socialist”.

    There IS a problem with Citizens United, but it’s only that it amplifies the corruption already present in the system due to the influence of money. Not quid-pro-quo corruption, but the unintentional corruption that happens when the foremost priority of any election official is fundraising, and creating tax exemptions for big corporations is the most effective way to raise those funds. I recommend Lawrence Lessig’s “Republic, Lost”, which is quite an airtight case.

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT

    You’re beginning to sound like Alex. The ‘corporations are people’ narrative of Citizens United that the left has come up with is certainly confused. But not any more confused than “Obama is a socialist”.

    Erm, Obama is a socialist, but he and the progressives pretend otherwise because they all are constrained by the reaction said admission would crreate. Maybe what the new left has given us doesn’t match the old definition of socialism, but that’s by design. The left in the west, and especially in America, understood that the people there would never accept traditional socialism: the concept where the people, obviously through their government, would directly own and control everything (wealth). So they modified the rules in such a way that government really didn’t have to have that direct power, but through massive regulation and the power of taxation, gave itself the ability to pick winners and loser anyway. What we e have is a some bastard child of socialism: it’s just a mutated but just as vile system as the original, and just as doomed to fail.

    There IS a problem with Citizens United, but it’s only that it amplifies the corruption already present in the system due to the influence of money.

    Blaming the money is like blaming guns for people getting shot. The problem isn’t the money: it is the corrupt and stupid people with the belief they know everything better than everyone else, the ones that comprise all of the left and quit a large segment of what passed for the right in this country, that are the problem. This is actually one of the new features of the mutated socialist system we have. The people that profit from the way this system allows the vote buyers to collect and use money the most, are incidentally but not coincidentally always the same ones hard at work trying to shut down access to money for their opposition, while leaving themselves with a clear benefit. That’s why the left wants corporate money out of politics, but never mentions the massive swath of union money they then would then still have access to, to dominate the whole thing with.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Kimpost

    Lot’s of socialist countries in the world, by that definition. Is US the only exception (if it hasn’t become socialist), or would you add others to the non-socialist group?

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    Lot’s of socialist countries in the world, by that definition. Is US the only exception (if it hasn’t become socialist), or would you add others to the non-socialist group?

    The US has been transformed, peacemeal, into another socialist shit hole akin to the European ones. The effects of that are being felt around the globe. We may not have the regressive taxation levels of European socialist states yet, but we have far worse regulation and a similar level of abuse by those running govenrment.

    Thumb up 3

  6. bolly

    @Alex.

    To be honest I really don’t understand your opinions. Sometimes you say that America is The last hope for a struggling world and then you say it is a pox infested whipping boy. You are vociferous in both and I am truly confused.

    My question to you would be what do you want ? A Romney pres/ and full majorities in both houses. Then the rebublicans can do whatever they want. Well… What would you like to see them do?

    If you a so inclined to answer this my areas of curiosity are
    Military
    Social
    Health
    Poverty
    Infrastructure
    Telecommunication
    Energy
    Interior
    International relations

    Thumb up 0

  7. Dave D

    Bolly:

    The democrats had both houses and the presidency for two full years and failed to positively address ANY of those issues on your list. They also managed to almost double the debt in 3 short years. My answer would be:

    “Anyythong but that.”

    M’kay?

    Thumb up 2

  8. bolly

    @ Dave.

    My question has nothing to do with the past at all. I specifically asked what you (Alex or anyone responding) like to see happen in those areas with a mitt romey president and full,controll of both houses.

    M’kay?

    Thumb up 0

  9. Kimpost

    Military = Stronger
    Social = Better
    Health = Better
    Poverty = Smaller
    Infrastructure = Better
    Telecommunication = Better
    Energy = Better
    Interior = Less gun control
    International relations = Stronger military power gains fearful respect

    Thumb up 0

  10. Hal_10000 *

    You’re beginning to sound like Alex. The ‘corporations are people’ narrative of Citizens United that the left has come up with is certainly confused. But not any more confused than “Obama is a socialist”.

    Both parties are part of this. The Democrats are a louder on the subject of Citizens United specifically because it plays to their particular base. But McCain-Feingold was passed by a GOP Congress and signed by a GOP President. When it comes to protecting incumbency and silencing critics, the parties are on the same page.

    Thumb up 2

  11. Mississippi Yankee

    Military = Stronger
    Social = Better
    Health = Better
    Poverty = Smaller
    Infrastructure = Better
    Telecommunication = Better
    Energy = Better
    Interior = Less gun control
    International relations = Stronger military power gains fearful respect

    Ameritopia the dream of … dreamers.

    Where do we sign up?

    Thumb up 0