A Fool’s Errand: The Case of “Citizens United”

After observing eight years of the Bush 43 administration trampling over the Constitution and middle class and poorer Americans, after witnessing their failure to protect our soldiers in the Republicans’ own useless attempt to win glory and oil in a far away country, I believe their party has earned the designation “party of abject evil.”  They have managed to drain the Social Security System of a total of some 2.669 trillion dollars in misspent payroll taxes- those taxes collected mostly from middle and lower income earners, while cutting the income taxes of most of the wealthier American citizens.  Yes, in plain English, a language not well spoken by Democratic leaders, more than 2 trillion dollars was stolen by Republicans from everyones payroll taxes to finance the Bush income tax cuts specifically for the rich.  How could this be done you ask?  It could be accomplished only under the watchful eye of cowardly, inarticulate Democrats acquiescing to useless wars and gross fiscal irresponsibility: enter the “party of abject stupidity!”

So, how can the parties of “abject evil” and “abject stupidity” wreak such utter havoc, not only on the American and Iraqi people, but on the economic stability of the entire earth?  Actually, it’s easy.  Given the special and actually aristocratic position in this country of political lobbies, given their license to bribe public officials with unlimited graft, why would any amount of evil or stupidity in Washington be a surprise to anyone?  Ironically, the fatal decision tipping the scales even further toward total corporate control of the American political system was fueled by the very same and most grievous faults of our two parties.  While our Supreme Court has always tended to embrace both liberal and conservative views, except under the blatantly stacked F.D.R. court, the “Justices” of the past have at least pretended to make legal, as opposed to political, decisions.

In the case of ”Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” as usual, liberals, including the ACLU were seduced, not by conservatives, but by a few sly Republicans who made the issue of campaign contributions one of speech.  Campaign contributions actually are not an example of “speech.”  They are a privilege granted to contributors by the Founding Fathers precisely by their omission of the subject in the Constitution.  Unequivocally speech and money cannot be the same.  Speech entails no Quid Pro Quo, while money certainly does, that is in every instance except for political contributions or when Federal Prosecutors have an axe to grind.  Why should huge, obvious bribes to politicians be condoned at all!

Ironically, I do not disagree with “Citizens’” contention that they ought to be allowed to spend their money on a documentary that is critical of Hillary Clinton.  In fact, “soft money” of this kind does tiptoe across the line into the realm of “freedom of speech.”  Furthermore, their “documentary” can and should be examined as to its validity and appropriateness to be shown on television.  It needs to be evaluated as to whether it really is a documentary or an advertisement.

How foolish can four supposedly educated justices on the Supreme Court be, how lazy as to fail to study the First Amendment and the Constitution before declaring that somehow, corporations should not enjoy the freedom of speech clearly protected for everyone by the First Amendment!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Worse yet, how unethical can five other so called “Justices” be to equate money and speech, deliberately ignoring the true significance of the “Citizens United” case and thereby inviting even further economic and political disaster upon their own country?


Allen Finkelstein