Democrats hate the Citizens United case, where
the Supreme Court said that restrictions on political spending by incorporated
groups were unconstitutional. Democrats
say the decision will allow the Koch Brothers to “Buy Elections.” The One All Liberals Were Waiting For has
said we need a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problems created by the
Citizens United decision. In response, Senator
Mark Udall (D, Colorado) has introduced a Constitutional Amendment to change
the Bill of Rights so Congress can regulate corporate free speech. Harry Reid, the Democrats' Leader in the Senate, supports the amendment. Whatever Democrats say or think, Bush never
even considered amending the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances." It does not say except for any organized groups
that incorporate. If pornography has to be allowed in order to preserve free
speech, and I think it does, then incorporated organizations of all types have
to be allowed to buy political ads. If the New York Times (incorporated) is
allowed to publish Liberal trash talk as "news," then Citizens United
has to be allowed to make movies that rebut the Pravda Press. Anything less is
censorship. Liberals seem to believe in censorship, as long as it's the Tea
Party and Republicans being censored. The Koch brothers do not buy elections.
If they influence elections it's because their arguments make sense to the
majority of voters
Let me explain what "Buying Elections"
historically means, at least in Chicago.
It means bribing voters to vote your way using "walking around
money." It usually involves "Vote early, vote often" fraud where
voters cast ballots for people who have died. In the old days, this was done
with chain voting. The paid voter is given a marked ballot before entering the
poling place. To get paid, he has to bring out a blank ballot. At the next
poling place, the party hack marks the blank ballot, then sends the bribed
voter to vote again. He brings out a new blank ballot. This continues until all
the ghosts have voted. "Buying Elections" does not mean buying ads on
radio and TV to explain your reasons for wanting certain political outcomes.
Buying ads is Free Speech. From the Democrats’
comments, it sounds like Liberals don't really believe in Free Speech. They
instead believe that the opposition needs to be silenced. Could this be the
result of Liberal arguments for "Hope and Change" are no longer
fooling the public?