Clinton’s Citizens United Chutzpah

Apparently not content to wait out Trumpapalooza at the Republican National Convention, the Clinton camp announced that President Hillary will call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling within 30 days of becoming president. It’s the sort of bold, over-the-top proclamation that makes the faithful swoon rapturously. It should make anyone who believes in liberty mourn the fact that someone such as she is thisclose to the Presidency.

Utter the words “Citizens United” to any good and proper liberal only at your own peril. I suggest the forethought of Maiden of the Mist riders and Gallagher front-row spectators. More than almost any other present day issue, the Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of aggregates of citizens to spend money on politics induces paroxysms in statists.

Theres more than a bit of, well, not quite “irony,” in the fact that Clinton wants amend the Constitution of the United States to overturn a Court decision about a movie that criticized her. Incongruity? Arrogance? Vanity? Lets just go with chutzpah. Chutzpah strengthened, recently, by her seeming invincibility.

The Constitution has never been amended to restrict the rights codified and protected by the Bill of Rights, with good reason. The Constitution limits what government is allowed to do, and restricts what government is permitted to do to us. Weakening those restrictions is tantamount to giving the government even more power than it has had, and even more power than it has managed to accumulate, drip by drip, over the past century. Citizens United (CU) angers many people because it is (somewhat incorrectly) perceived to grant personhood status to corporations, to allow the wealthiest to have a disproportionate impact, by dint of their wealth, on elections, and to take power away from the people.

What, however, are corporations, other than aggregates of people? They certainly don’t have the power of independent sentient thought. This hasn’t stopped Clinton and her ilk from portraying CU as an existential threat to the Republic, but the plain language of the First Amendment prohibits any government interference in speech. While some claim that speech and spending money on speech are not the same thing, it’s impossible to engage in political speech (the reason 1A was drafted) without spending money. Once we realize that money is part of speech, the bit about “abridging” makes the rest clear:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech

There’s nothing there about campaign finance restrictions, nothing there about donor limits, nothing there about prohibiting groups of people organized under a particular legal structure (corporations) from spending money on speech, and nothing there about giving preferential treatment to groups of people organized under a different legal structure (unions). Add in an affirmation by the Court, and we see why Clinton & Co. feel that a Constitutional amendment is the only means to undo the grievous (and personal) affront that they deem CU to be.

The Court and the courts have ruled that some campaign spending restrictions can be considered constitutional if they create the appearance of corruption or undue influence. While I disagree with this opinion, it has nevertheless been used to place limits on certain types of campaign spending. Even without these limits, though, there are provisions in the law to guard against money buying politicians. They’re called bribery laws. Just as trespassing is not protected freedom of movement, quid-pro-quo bribery is not protected speech.

Bribery can be hard to prove, though, so people who think liberty is less important than their own feelings of propriety seek pre-emptive restrictions instead. This is no different than censorship of speech itself, or restrictions on gun rights, or advocating for warrantless searches, or any of the countless broad infringements of liberty that take away rights from responsible people to prevent certain behaviors by irresponsible people. In other words, because enforcement is difficult, prior restraint is deemed acceptable.

How would an amendment meant to overturn CU read? I went to the website of an organization dedicated to such, but did not find specific language proposals. This makes sense, from a Critical Theory perspective: by criticizing without offering a concrete alternative, the critic precludes criticism of his own proposal and leaves a void for sympathetic readers to fill in. Still, we can find some hint in their “money is not speech” pronouncement.

Think about how powerful such a tool would be in the hands of the government. Incumbent politicians already enjoy HUGE advantages in electioneering, advantages evinced by re-election rates that typically stay above 90% and stand at 85% or better even in years where “big” changes happen. If 1A was gutted to exclude money, then ANY money spent on speech would allow incumbents to quash speech they didn’t care for. It would be a terminal blow to liberty in this country, and would also be a massive shield against any retribution directed at incumbents. Once a party gained control of the government, its members could do whatever they wanted, knowing that no one dare speak against them for fear of prosecution.

Lest we think that Clinton’s chutzpah is solely evinced by the personal nature of this anti-CU initiative, we should take note of the tens of millions of dollars (many of them from foreign lands and governments) that have poured into the Clinton Foundation. Before Mrs. Clinton complains about all the money being spent by people who don’t like her and the appearances of corruption therefrom, she should consider the appearance of corruption THAT money imparts. Anatomically incorrect metaphors involving an alloy of copper and zinc come to mind.

I suppose, though, that Clinton’s supporters have deemed her incorruptible while mere mortals are easily bought. How else would they explain away the hypocrisy of railing against corporations spending money on political speech while accepting tens of millions from organizations and nations that themselves have political interests and preferences?

The joke is, of course, that no such Constitutional amendment will pass. The bar is simply too high for a partisan goal such as this. Apart from the two-thirds majorities needed by both houses of Congress, 38 states must vote in favor. In short, it’s Not. Gonna. Happen.

Why, then, the proclamation that she will seek such an amendment? Pure theater and political gamesmanship.

First, it’s red meat for the Angry Left. It’s an attempt to draw in some of the Sanders voters who see Clinton as part of the big corrupt Washington machine.

Second, it’s a way to get legislators to go on record. With the help of the liberal press, the Clinton camp can portray those who vote against the amendment as favoring unaccountable Big Money in politics and therefore tar them as appearing corrupt.

Third, it’ll give her a “hey, I made a promise, I kept it, I tried, but the Republicans obstructed me.” It’s aiming for the fences while knowing full well you’re not going to hit it past the pitcher. It’ll be a message for the 2018 mid-terms and part of the campaign by the Dems to recapture Congress.

Most calls for Constitutional amendments fall into the same categories of theater and gamesmanship. The Right gained some traction among its own outraged loyalists by proposing an amendment to [define marriage][20] as between a man and a woman. That, too, has as much chance of passing as Hellen Keller has of finding Waldo (she’s dead, by the way). They can energize the base, and in an election where the base is shaky, anything that can pull a few more in is worth trying, no matter how quixotic.

Do we dismiss this, however, merely because it’s theater? Hell no! Clinton wants to [redacted] around with the Bill of Rights. That’s a horror of the first order. The thought alone should disqualify her from the Presidency. Unfortunately, it’s more likely to get her dubbed “brave,” “noble,” and a “fighter for our rights.” Yes, the last one will be uttered without irony. We are truly living in dark times.