The Evils of Campaign Finance Reform and Why We The People Need To Stay On Top Of It
Citizen United VS FEC Issue Still Needs to be on the Front Burner
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) bans corporations and unions from independent political spending, as if its constitutional for the government to demand this of private American citizens and their businesses. What BCRA and those who support it got wrong was that they believed that they did have the authority over the people to stop their First Amendment rights. Well, many legitimate political scholars, understand it was clear that this kind of “oversight” (or tyranny) of free independent Americans was without a doubt unconstitutional and a way to allow those in power to stay in power. (It is bad enough that Congress has created a SEPARATE set of laws that they live under, once elected, as elitist who benefit from the fact that regular laws, which affect the common citizen, simply do not apply to them, but that is a topic for another article.) In 2008 a non-profit 501c4 group called Citizens United came along
and was slapped with a fine as their First Amendment rights were stifled by the FEC.
The FEC (Federal Election Committee), are made up of six members who are confirmed by the Senate; the FEC prevented Citizen United from exercising their First Amendment right in showing a fact filled movie about the lefts’ precious Hillary Clinton. Then they did the unthinkable to the elitists of Congress, they sued for use of their First Amendment rights. One only needs to read the holding of the Supreme Court in their findings of this particular case to understand the constitutionality of it and know any bloviating from the left just keeps congress corrupt and separate from all other citizens of the United States.
From the Supreme Court of the United States blog, here is another example of telling the government what it CANNOT do to the people, which needs no other debate. “Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast”. Clear, concise and exactly the right decision, in this case. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
To go deeper into what I discussed above, let’s read how author and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, George
Will, explains how campaign finance reform is wrong: “Campaign finance reform = corruption. Let me say that again slightly rephrased, campaign finance reform corrupts the political system it presumes to save from corruption… Now don’t we want to get money out of politics? Isn’t campaign finance reform an inherent good?” He explains that in 1969, Senator Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat, decided to challenge President Johnson, which was only possible because McCarthy and his very rich five liberal backers were against the Vietnam War, and they backed him with an incredible amount of money, equal today to the sum of $75 million dollars. George said, “…but because of campaign finance reform, the most, a wealthy quintet could give to help an insurgent against an incumbent today would be $13,000.00… McCarthy didn’t win the nomination but he did compel Johnson not to run for a second term. In doing so McCarthy changed history.” George Will also explains how the elitist corruption was triggered by McCarthy.. “…but the Democratic Party establishment wasn’t happy about it. To stop it from happening again, they pushed for the government regulation of political speech…thus campaign finance reform was born.” “…whatever their stated intentions, campaign finance reform laws are not written to protect the public from corrupt politicians. They are written to protect incumbents from anyone who might challenge them.” He continues, “So, not only doesn’t campaign finance reform disrupt the status quo, it incases it in cement.” Then George emphasizes how all laws, past, present and future, regulating campaign finance have been and will be written by incumbent legislators. Again, easy spawning of corruption. This truly creates a protective wall between We The People and Congress. George continues “…but conformers say, ‘that politicians are bought and sold by big money interests, we have to stop this.’…but money is rarely given in order to change a politician’s vote. It is given in order to support politicians who already vote, the way the donors want them to.” Now that statement will make the liberal heads explode, but it is the truth, and we the people need to understand that. George says, “These reformers apparently think that what James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, meant when he wrote, ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech’, was really, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech unless incumbents think that abridgements will help keep them in office.” He finishes by saying, “Let me repeat myself now, for the third and final time, Campaign Finance reform is what it pretends to combat: corruption.”
Now Citizens United just did what no one else would do, and as free, law abiding American citizens, this type of action is what makes the difference in a Republic vs. a pure Democracy which is ripe for the growth of corruption. Citizens United’s actions were putting into effect the authority of We The People over the government, just as a Republic should.
However, like always, the establishment who created the corruptive situation in the first place, are now demonizing individuals who are standing together in unity to dismantle their evils. So no matter what the establishment or others grumble about, the Supreme Court’s decision got it right in the Citizen United case, and protected We The People, and took away a small piece of the elitists laws of in our Congress. Make no mistake, the establishment Congress is very much the deepest part of the swamp in Washington D.C.
I’ll close with this key quote from the SCOTUS decision, “…political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it…”
“Charlie Mike” (Continue the Mission)