[Peace-discuss] Fear of FEC-less ads

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I don't like this guy's politics much, but I think he may be right about why 
there has been so much weeping and gnashing of teeth about the SC decision in 
Citizens United v. FEC.  The one clear if perhaps questionable contribution of 
the American 20th c. to human civilization since the Neolithic was PR; the fear 
of the NYT editorialists et al. is that this SC decision in its madly consequent 
way may upset the apple cart.  OTOH with Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd c. CE, 
I say, "Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a thousand schools of thought contend." 
(I realize the image has been used by others.) --CGE]

	Understanding Liberal Rage Over Citizens United
	by Brian Garst

On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue. 
  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter 
is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to 
power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.  So why are prominent 
liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?

It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things 
corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a 
tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on 
corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because 
it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate 
gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the 
unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the 
same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their 
opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the merits. 
Rather, it is philosophical.

Consider the following reactions to the decision from the left. The New York 
Times editorialized the decision as a “blow to democracy,” and a “disastrous 
5-to-4 ruling” that “has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 
19th century.”  Talk about overwrought.

President Obama decried the “stampede of special interest money” that will 
somehow “[undermine] the influence of average Americans.”  Senator Patrick Leahy 
warned that the decision would “change the course of our democracy.”  And the 
ever-contemptible Rep. Alan Grayson must have been hyperventilating when he 
declared that “this is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott 
case. It leads us all down the road to serfdom.”

As if these politicians aren’t bad enough, the liberal blogosphere is even 
worse, as frantic left-wing bloggers and their readers have been busy declaring 
an end to democracy as we know it ever since the ruling came down.
The apocalyptic – and not to mention apoplectic – nature of their criticism 
suggests an answer as to why the decision irks them so.  Liberals think you are 
all idiots.  American voters are simply too stupid to filter so much information 
and then reach the right decision.  And as they well know, the right decision is 
unquestionably to adopt the liberal position.  They, as the learned among us, 
know best and so ought to be the only ones allowed to tell you what you should 
think and why you should think it.  That way you don’t get confused by all those 
other pesky views and opinions.  One wonders how we ever survived as a nation 
before the great heroes John McCain and Russ Feingold came along to save us from 
ourselves.

At the heart of the liberal philosophy of government is a belief that people are 
too stupid to fend for themselves, manage their own affairs or vote for the 
right candidates.  Democracy itself will be destroyed because of a few extra ads 
targeting voters before elections? Voters, it seems, just aren’t sophisticated 
enough to handle that much information.

Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution recognizes rights that all citizens 
have, regardless of how intelligent the editorial board of the New York Times 
thinks a person from Kansas really is.  It turns out that “make no law” really 
means that “Congress shall make no law,” even if that law would advance the 
liberal agenda.

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/23/understanding-liberal-rage-over-citizens-united/

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.