Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former Senator from NY, former Secretary of State, former and current candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President, made a rather stark proclamation last week. At her first official campaign event, held in Monticello, Iowa, Ms. Clinton stated:
We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment.
It seems obvious this statement is a reference to the 2010 Citizens United vs FEC Supreme Court decision, which centered on a film created by Citizens United, a conservative lobbying group, and its desire to run that film on television in the weeks leading up to the 2008 Democratic primaries. Law at the time, specifically the McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, prohibited corporations and unions from “electioneering communication” 30 days before any primary or 60 days before a general election. The Supreme Court decision overturned that prohibition, and extended First Amendment protection that individuals and non-profit organizations already had to for-profit organizations, labor unions and other associations. “Citizens United,” (CU) as the case is commonly referred to, is the focus of enormous rage on the Left, and many consider it a huge travesty that unleashed a tidal wave of corrupting money into politics. The fact that nonprofits and unions were already free to spend doesn’t seem to matter to that crowd, which has been chanting “Corporations are not people!” every chance it gets.
The debate about money in politics isn’t new, and there are people who would love to see money removed from politics and disassociated from speech. They haven’t really answered the question, however, as to how speech can be effected without money. Anything one does to propagate a message costs money. Even buying a soap box upon which to stand costs money.
The “Corporations are not people!” chant is equally hollow. What are corporations other than aggregations of people, with certain legal niceties mixed in? Corporations are not some alternate sentience – they do not and cannot have thoughts or opinions apart from the people that comprise them. If other aggregations of people e.g. unions, nonprofits, or loose associations (all protected by the First Amendment’s association clause) have the right to spend money on political speech, how can that be denied corporations?
Nevertheless, this notion that corporate money is somehow inherently corrupting and unaccountable, and is the source of dysfunction in politics, has dug deep roots on the Left, so Ms. Clinton’s declaration is certainly red meat to her crowd. It’s also an increasingly common theme on the Left that the Constitution is a problem, rather than one of the greatest creations of humankind and the foundation for everything this country is. So, she’s pandering quite nicely to the Left with this statement.
I doubt many realize how empty that promise is, though. Amending the Constitution is a tall order, and 38 states would have to agree. 21 states voted Republican in every one of the last four presidential elections, and given that CU is a liberal bogeyman, an amendment to alter the Constitution’s most fundamental right isn’t going to pass muster therein. Still, it does stoke the anger and outrage that clouds rational thought and motivates people to follow those of a similar mindset, so she’s probably helping her appeal to the Left by making the promise.
I cannot blame Ms. Clinton for her statement and interest in this issue for another reason. The name of the movie that Citizens United sought to air? Hillary: The Movie. It wasn’t complimentary.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters