Hello Children,
Glory! Glory Hallelujah!
Or to paraphrase America’s most famous negro communist, “free at last, free at last! God Almighty, free at last!”
“Whachu talkin’ bout, Norma Jean?”, I reckon you’re asking yourself right about now.
For the first time I can ever recollect, the Supreme Court done turned away from the EVILS of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, and instead embraced the HOLINESS of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!
I done seen the following while perusing the blog of my EVIL arch nemesis, Ed Brayton {Here}:
How’s them apples, LIEberals!I know a lot of liberals are very upset by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v FEC, but frankly I think it's much ado about little. The standard reaction seems to be: "Oh my god, corporations can now spend tons of money to influence the outcome of elections." But I've got news for you: They already do that. They always have. And the campaign finance laws did not prevent it.
What yesterday's ruling does is allow corporations (and unions, by the way) to spend money directly from their own accounts to buy ads that explicitly argue for or against the election of a particular candidate. But they already did finance such ads, they just had to do it indirectly through the purchase of "issues ads" -- wink, wink -- by PACs, chambers of commerce, industry groups, 527s and the like.
The fact is that the campaign finance law that the court struck down was never really intended to reduce corporate influence over elections in the first place. It was designed to give the illusion of reducing corporate influence over elections. The corporate world faced a minor inconvenience at the most. They continued to spend money by the dumptruck-full, they just did it indirectly so that you had to do a ton of research to know who was really endorsing which candidate.
Frankly, it may well be better to have companies endorsing candidates directly. At least the public will know who is endorsing them. That gives them more information than a disclaimer at the end of the "issue ad" that is clearly intended to endorse a candidate. It's at least marginally better to have the ad expressly say that it was paid for by Dow Chemical rather than by "Americans for Happy Kittens and Grandmothers."
Corporations are America’s greatest contribution to capitalism!
And Yahweh Himself done told us in the Bible that capitalism is His gift to us!
America has now unchained corporations so as they can better influence American politics…well, more than they used to anyhow.
QED, America is more Holy than ever before, even with “President” Barack HUSSEIN Obama at the helm!
Or so I thought!
Yesterday, I was back over at ol’ Ed’s blog to see if’n he done any bellyaching over this here RIGHTEOUS and Godly decision.
And the answer done surprised and consternated me mightily {Here}:
Glenn Greenwald does his usual brilliant job of analyzing the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. He punctures, as I attempted to do, the astonishingly overwrought arguments being used against the decision about how this is the coming of corporate fascism and now big business will have unlimited influence in politics -- as if they didn't already.
Here he makes essentially the same argument I made, only much more eloquently:
I'm also quite skeptical of the apocalyptic claims about how this decision will radically transform and subvert our democracy by empowering corporate control over the political process. My skepticism is due to one principal fact: I really don't see how things can get much worse in that regard. The reality is that our political institutions are already completely beholden to and controlled by large corporate interests (Dick Durbin: "banks own" the Congress). Corporations find endless ways to circumvent current restrictions -- their armies of PACs, lobbyists, media control, and revolving-door rewards flood Washington and currently ensure their stranglehold -- and while this decision will make things marginally worse, I can't imagine how it could worsen fundamentally. All of the hand-wringing sounds to me like someone expressing serious worry that a new law in North Korea will make the country more tyrannical. There's not much room for our corporatist political system to get more corporatist. Does anyone believe that the ability of corporations to influence our political process was meaningfully limited before yesterday's issuance of this ruling?If you did believe that corporate influence was limited in any meaningful way earlier this week before this ruling, I've got a bridge to sell you. Does anyone really think that Monsanto or Dow Chemical or General Dynamics sat around during last year's election thinking, "Boy, we'd really like to spend millions of dollars to influence this election and make sure that candidates that will do our bidding get elected, but it's just so much trouble to set up a PAC or a 527 or give money to a chamber of commerce or an industry trade group, none of which have any limits on how much they can spend?"
Of course not. They did spend those millions of dollars on behalf of those candidates that will do their bidding, they just did it through a 527 called Americans for Clean Water and Fluffy Bunnies or Patriots for American Values. Bear in mind that all of those pro-corporate bills that passed during the Clinton and Bush years took place with all of those alleged restrictions in place.
The fact is that those laws were never intended to protect our legislators against the influence of corporate money; why in the world would those legislators who benefit from that money voluntarily kill the golden goose? No, those laws were only intended to give the illusion that Congress was preventing the influence of corporate money. It was a con from the start.
He also debunks the pragmatic political argument:
I'm even more unpersuaded by the argument -- seen in today's New York Times Editorial -- that this decision will "ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections." What evidence is there for that? Over the past five years, corporate money has poured far more into the coffers of the Democratic Party than the GOP -- and far more into Obama's campaign coffers than McCain's (especially from Wall Street). If anything, unlimited corporate money will be far more likely to strengthen incumbents than either of the two parties (and unlimited union spending, though dwarfed by corporate spending, will obviously benefit Democrats more).Exactly right.
-Emphasis mine-
Corporations have been giving more money to DEMOCRATS than to Republicans???
That means that Democrats have been getting more of God’s love (via corporate donations) than Republicans! * This here revelation done floored me something fierce!
What now, children?
Near as I can figure out this conundrum, we got a couple conclusions to draw:
a) Democrats are now Holier than Republicans
b) Democrats are now Republicans in principle
I tell you, I don’t cotton to neither of them choices!
I refuse - simply REFUSE - to believe that Yahweh chooses to look approvingly upon Demo(N)crats and their God-forsaken LIEberal agenda!
After all, good Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell explained to us for years why the Almighty, in His mercy, has visited DEATH and UNTOLD HORRORS upon America! The Answer:
Cause us REAL Americans have suffered Liberals to exercise their “Constitutional Rights”!But “b” presents a whole nother perspective, but not so stomach-turning to contemplate…still not appealing, though.
Could it be that some Democrats are allowing all these here corporate donations to influence their votes? Cause if so, then don’t that make them Republicans in principle, if not in name?
Well now, that might not be so bad after all. Maybe it's high time we done embraced them Democrats what wish to renounce their pact with SATAN!
Welcome to the Republican Party, Democrats! Let us join hands; our corporate overlords beckon!
-Norma Jean
* Though that does make a mite bit of sense, what with Joe "Jew-boy" Lieberman and Max Baucus among the few Democrats willing to sell their votes for donations. Good on ya, fellers!
