Nuggets of Wisdom

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

How To Argue For “Citizens United” (Or Why Corporate Personhood Isn’t So Scary!)

Over a year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission that political spending by corporations (or unions or any special interests group) could not be regulated or prohibited by the federal government. Obviously, liberal pundits and politicians decried the Supreme Court decision, claiming it would bring an end to democracy and allow corporations to take over America.

Even to this day, moonbats are scheming to reinstate limits on political speech. Just recently, Vermont’s senator Virginia Lloyds proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would deny corporations (and other such organizations) personhood.

Let’s hope Lloyds and other moonbats in Vermont don’t get food poisoning from eating a can of SpaghettiOs, or become seriously injured riding a John Deere lawnmower. Because the only way they could sue the Cambell Soup Company or Deere & Company is if those corporations were considered persons—which is only possible through corporate personhood.

To combat the hysteria surrounding “Citizens United” and corporate personhood, I’m providing the following videos. Feel free to watch them so you can better tackle and debunk the misinformation being spewed by moonbats. (Remember kiddies: knowledge is power!)

This first video, surprisingly enough, is from a liberal (more specifically, an ACLU attorney!) called, well, LiberalViewer. He’s one of the few liberals who supports the “Citizens United” decision, claiming it defends free speech ("the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity"), and will, in the long run, benefit Americans by helping non-profit (rather than “for-profit”) organizations like Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and the Sierra Club voice their opinions before an election.

This next video is released by—the YouTube account of the Reason Foundation. Not only does it highlight the insane fearmongering of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and President Barack Obama, but it also gives three reasons why those moonbats are wrong about “Citizens United”: most states already allow corporate political spending, corporations already influence politics through corporate media outlets, and more free speech—especially political speech—is never harmful to democracy.

This final video is from a user called ShaneDK—an outspoken libertarian with an extensive series on the U.S. Constitution. As the video title suggests, Shane debunks the lies behind “Citizens United” such as how the decision overturned the 100-year-old Tillman Act (when it didn’t). Of course, as he explains, most of these lies derive from the fact that the moonbats spreading them haven’t even read the Supreme Court decision!

Finally, for laughs and giggles (and to show how deranged moonbats can be), here’s a video by Davis Fleetwood—a moonbat so far-left, he makes Michael Moore look far-right! He desperately tries to argue how “Citizens United” makes voting obsolete (even though citizens can still vote—and thus have the final say—in elections, regardless of how much money corporations pump into campaigns).

Um, hey Hermit: you may want to go out once in a while! Staying in (so others may go out!) tends to drive one mentally insane, as you clearly demonstrate.