The left is outraged over the Supreme Court decision that stood up for the First Amendment and free speech. They are beside themselves both in print and in politics and in the broadcast media. Last night on MSNBC Barney Frank was asked for his reaction to the Supreme Court ruling saying that corporations can advertise as often and wherever they want in political campaigns.
FRANK: Fortunately, there is an approach we can take. What we can do what's perfectly possible and constitutional, I believe, unassailable is to impose restrictions as a matter of corporate law on what corporations can do. We can limit what corporations do. And we limit it not as a matter of campaign finance regulation per se, but as a matter of corporate law. We will be cooperating with the Obama administration in drafting the toughest possible constitutional legislation to prevent the drowning of American democracy in corporate dollars. There's no other way to say it.
RUSH: That's right, because we want the American democracy to continue to choke on union dollars. We don't want competition, we don't want fairness. Your Democrat Party against the First Amendment, Barney Frank, shell-shocked over what happened in Massachusetts.
(playing of Barney Frank spoof)
Barney Frank from a district won by Scott Brown and Massachusetts and the day they lost Massachusetts. By the way, speaking of Massachusetts, folks, do you remember, do you remember how the media and the Democrats were linking me to Scott Brown? They put me in Scott Brown ads. I had said not a word about this campaign. They linked me with Scott Brown before the vote. He wins in a near landslide and now they ignore that I had something to do with it by their own admission and trying to call him a moderate and they're peppering him with questions, "What are you going to do to work with Democrats?"
RUSH: Now, the Supreme Court came out with this big free speech decision yesterday. It's sweeping. It is huge. Did you hear Obama's response? Obama said that he needs to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing else, a forceful response. Now, I want to point out that Obama was a law professor, or technically a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago law school for 12 years. Now, why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the court and honor our system of separation of powers? Why? Of course it's easy. Because he doesn't like the Constitution. And this we know. He thinks the Constitution restrains him and restricts him for doing things to people. The Constitution spells out what the government may not do, and that's what he doesn't like.
Thomas Lifson writing about this in the AmericanThinker.com: "No more need to set up political action committees in order to have a constrained voice. [Corporations] can pay for their own ads, though they cannot contribute directly to campaigns. ... The political dialogue in America will become more varied and intense, with for-profit and nonprofit corporations able to spend money in order to influence politics. The changes should be far-reaching. This diminishes the power of the left, overall, as corporations now have the ability to speak as loud or louder than unions, who have been unfettered. ... 'Today's Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case means that the anti-incumbent furor that has been growing is partly released from the shackles created by "incumbent protection" election and campaign finance laws,'" which is exactly how I characterized McCain-Feingold, the Incumbent Protection Act. "The dirty little secret about all campaign finance laws passed by Congress since 1972 is that they were designed to protect incumbents by stifling competition," and restraining their opponents.
The more I hear people react to this on the left and the more I read, the more I understand just what a huge win for freedom and liberty this decision was. The liberals are having a fit. Here's Howard Fineman: "I rarely attend a Supreme Court argument, but I did last fall for a 'rehearing' of the campaign-spending case. I wrote a column about it, predicting that the Roberts Court would sweep away long-established restrictions on spending by corporations. The most vivid image I saw was the red-faced Chief Justice John Roberts, veins popping on his neck as he vibrated with disgust at the idea that government could limit what a corporate entity could do or say in the political arena. The 5-4 opinion issued Thursday by the Roberts Court -- written by swing voter Anthony Kennedy -- was even more sweeping than I had imagined and predicted.
"It's nothing short of revolutionary. Here's how I add up the possible consequences: It adds to Republican chances of pickups in red states with small, cheap media markets. It turns the cottage industry of campaign consulting into a Hollywood-lucrative major media sector. It reduces candidates and political parties to mere appendages in their own campaigns. It will turn corporate boardrooms into political cockfighting pits, since that is where the key decisions will be made. It gives President Obama a populist issue, if he has the cojones and imagination and sense of injustice to take it on. It rips the veil of 'conservatism' from this court, which just rendered one of the most wildly 'activist' opinions in decades. It makes a mockery of the legal theory of 'original intent.' The Founders would be rolling over in their graves. Other than that, it's not much of a story."
The left thinks this is judicial activism? That's where we've come to. Judicial activism is standing up for the First Amendment. Judicial activism is simply recognizing the constitutionality of speech. That, to the left, is an abomination. Judicial activism is rewriting the Constitution to say things it doesn't say, interpreting it in ways that were never intended to be interpreted. Writing new law from the bench is activism. But simply upholding the constitutionality of the First Amendment? That is original intent. It's certainly not activism in any way, shape, manner, or form.
I'll tell you, the Washington Post has a story here, and the argument that was advanced by the government in this case, you will not believe this. It all started with David Bossie, "a veteran Republican campaign operative who made his mark investigating the Clintons, thought his group could offer a conservative answer to Michael Moore's successful films. After Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' premiered in 2004, Bossie's Citizens United group released 'Celsius 41.11.'And after it became clear that Bossie's longtime enemy Hillary Rodham Clinton would run for president, Citizens United released another flick: 'Hillary: The Movie.' Featuring a who's-who cast of right-wing commentators, the 2008 film takes viewers on a savaging journey through Clinton's scandals. The sole compliment about the then-senator comes from conservative firebrand Ann Coulter: 'Looks good in a pantsuit.' But 'Hillary: The Movie' never became a blockbuster. The Federal Election Commission restricted Citizens United's ability to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season, a decision that Bossie and other conservative activists saw as a threat to their freedom of speech. 'The marketplace for my movie was completely and totally shut down by the Federal Election Commission,' Bossie said in an interview Thursday. So he sued -- and thus was born Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"Bossie said Ted Olson was 'singularly responsible for our winning this case.' Olson transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain-Feingold to an assault on the law's constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices. When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC --" this is Obama's lawyer "-- was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election timeframe?" And this guy representing the FEC said, yes, the government would ban the book, and the justices shot up, stood up and said what the hell are you talking about. 'That's pretty incredible,' Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle. 'If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked. 'That's correct,' Stewart replied. 'It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?' Roberts asked." The government lawyer said yes. He had to. If he's going to ban a movie, he's gotta be consistent. "Bossie said this was the argument that turned a majority of the bench against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United."
In the LA Times on the opinion page: "Conservatives Embrace Judicial Activism in Campaign Finance Ruling -- The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable." Look, if they want to call me an activist for speech and liberty then I'll raise my hand, I'll gladly be an activist. You know, it's a sad damn thing we need activists for speech and liberty in the United States of America, folks. It's a damn sorry sight that we need activists for speech and liberty. The liberals say that the framers never meant to protect corporations. The hatred for corporations on the American left, I'm still dialing in on that. It is more intense than even I was aware of. Snerdley, I'm not surprised the ruling wasn't unanimous. I mean you got four huge libs. I'm not surprised at all it wasn't unanimous. The left is a monster the likes of which average people still have not come to grips with.
The Washington Post: High Court Shows it Might be Willing to Act Boldly. And Roberts said, all you people disagreeing here, if we held -- see, the liberals think stare decisis is that's it, you cannot overturn precedents, ever. And Roberts said, oh, yeah? If we held to precedent, segregation would still be legal. Minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional. The government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without a warrant. If stare decisis cannot be seen as inexorable command, if we can't overturn precedent then I'm sure you liberals do not want to go that route. The New York Times: "The Court's Blow to Democracy." Listen to this characterization of the New York Times: "The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate." Well, corporations are made up of ordinary Americans. What does he mean here, corporations are created by the state? (interruption) Because you gotta give a charter? Well, no, he means the state, the central planners, corporations are created. The state creates nothing. They may grant the creators of an idea permission to do it, but they create zilch.
RUSH: You know, it is amazing what these libs are saying. We cannot compete with the unions. We can't compete with unions. One alone gave Obama $60 million! We can't compete. One union gave him $60 million. This is just leveling the playing field. Howard Fineman says it's an activist opinion. All corporations are to be censored during elections? Why are media corporations accepted, then? This is one question I would love to ask all of these people in the media. You work for corporations! "Yeah, but we are the press, the First Amendment."
Well, everybody has First Amendment protections. Everybody is acknowledged to have the right to free speech. "Yeah, but we're special, we're the press." Yeah, but you work for corporations. Your corporations are putting you out there. You're not independent contractors. Look at your paycheck. It's coming from ABC or Disney or it's coming from GE or NBC, or coming from CBS and whoever the hell else. You work for corporations, and you despise 'em. What the lib media are trying to do here, folks -- and the Democrats as well -- is they're trying to misuse the language again. I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that when the court upholds the Constitution, that's not activism. When the court rejects activist precedent from prior courts, that's not activism. Rejecting the Constitution is activism -- and they're trying to misappropriate this word, "activism," for their own purposes.
Dred Scott would be the law of the land. Slavery would be the law of the land. Plessy v. Ferguson would be the law of the land. That's segregation. Korematsu would be the law of the land, ladies and gentlemen. That's the internment of the Japanese-Americans. On and on and on, all of these things. If we couldn't overturn precedent, we'd still have slavery and segregation. Following the Constitution can never be activism. Following the Constitution is fidelity to the law. Corporations are nothing more than individuals organized into a group to the purpose of conducting business. At the core of the attacks on this decision is the hate for liberty and competition and debate. That is what the media doesn't like, it's what the Democrat Party doesn't like, and of course the left doesn't like any of that: Liberty, competition, and debate. As far as I'm concerned, the left does not get to decide, my friends, which parts of the Constitution have meaning which question parts do not. But they want to have that power. It is we, the conservatives, who stand for the Bill of Rights. They don't. The right to speech, the right to religious liberty and freedom, the right to bear arms, the right to private property, et cetera. Thank God for the Bill of Rights, and it has just been freed. Freedom awoke from a 100-year coma yesterday with this decision. Here's David "Rodham" Gergen and... It's actually a montage here of a bunch of people who do not like this one bit.
DAVID GERGEN: The court here is guilty of, uh, something conservatives say they don't like, and that is judicial activism.
SIMON ROSENBERG: This is judicial activism.
BOB EDGAR: What the Supreme Court has done today is they've shown their political activism.
BARNEY FRANK: The conservatives talk about not having interference with the democratic process. This is judicial striking down of the law.
HOWARD FINEMAN: The notion that John Roberts and his court were careful proceduralists who looked to original intent and, you know, only went incrementally the law that's completely out the window. This is one of most radical decisions in a long, long time.
RUSH: Ah, they're squealing like stuck pigs. It tells you how good a decision it is. The media wants freedom of speech all to themselves, even if they do work for corporations.
RUSH: Let me put this in perspective, this caterwauling of the left over upholding the First Amendment. These people who are upset with American citizens who happen to work in corporations, who happen to be directors in corporations, having the ability to participate in our political process, these are the same people who want to grant constitutional rights to terrorists, and do. These are the same people that want to put on a show trial with the masterminds of the 9/11 disaster, grant them freedom of speech, grant them every constitutional right, including Miranda rights -- the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber -- and yet they hate American corporations. They have some ingrained, genetic "despisal" of corporations because corporations are competitive. They foster and thrive in free, open markets, all of which are opposed by the left.