Follow Up: Obama to Fight First Amendment

Over the last year, it’s become pretty obvious to even the most casual observers that President Obama is not what most would call a “strict constitutionalist.”  Instead, when the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional the provisions of campaign finance reform that prevented corporations from contributing to political candidates, he promised to take action.  (sorry for the run on sentence there.) 

Of course, the action he has promised isn’t what I’d call a blow for the First Amendment.  Instead, amidst cries from liberal pantywastes that the court is engaging in “judicial activism,” he has decided that he will draft “strong legislation” to find another way around the constitution. 

Sound like a strict constitutionalist to you? 

No, of course not.  First of all, the Supreme Court’s “judicial activism” is rooted in the idea that corporations are entities, like labor unions, who can speak out on political issues, including the contribution of campaign funds to specific political candidates.  There is no evidence in the constitution that the framers thought of businessmen as the enemy; to the contrary, most of these men ran businesses, unlike our current president.  They saw clearly that if America was to survive, the lifeblood of the country would clearly be businesses who are free to do business.  President Obama sees corporations as the enemy, to be punished for doing something the government cannot do:  run a business in such a way that (gasp!) profits are made.  The framers could not have imagined men like Bernie Madoff, nor could they have imagined that Japan would produce more products for American consumption than American companies.  But the constitution doesn’t say that the government is allowed to tell companies what to make, how much to charge for it, how much to pay their workers, or whom they can do business with. 

The argument by the Clinton News Network’s liberal talking heads is that the money will corrupt the candidates involved.  I guess the money that was raised by then-candidate Obama didn’t corrupt him.  The campaign contributions by labor unions didn’t corrupt him.  He has only exempted the labor unions from taxation to pay for the Obamacare fiasco.  Nope.  No corruption there. 

The point is that the corruption occured in spite of the provisions in campaign contribution laws that prevent certain types of corporations from contributing.  Of course, the law doesn’t prevent other corporations, like NBC, CBS, and ABC from giving free press coverage to one candidate, while excoriating the other.  No corruption there either. 

I’m not saying that there is a potential for a candidate to do something unethical.  There is.  But, if we think so little of our candidates, how can we vote for them?  If a few bucks will corrupt them, how about power to rule over the American people?  Power can corrupt just as much as cash. 

Corporations contribute to conservatives more than liberals, and that is the problem Obama has.  He doesn’t want the Republicans to be able to finance ads that may accurately portray liberals as what they are:  socialists in Armani suits. 

So, let’s check the score: 

Republican candidates 4, Obama backed democrats 0. 

First Amendment 1, Obama 0. 

Looks like America sees the president as what he is.  A socialist in an Armani suit.


2 Responses to “Follow Up: Obama to Fight First Amendment”

  1. Ben Hoffman Says:

    [Instead, when the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional the provisions of campaign finance reform that prevented corporations from contributing to political candidates, he promised to take action. ]

    That’s not what they ruled, moron. They ruled that corporations can now spend money on campaigns to get candidates elected. In other words, corporations now get to choose who will be elected and what legislation will be passed.

    It’s just a matter of time before China pays Congressmen to get rid of the Constitutional requirement that presidents must be born in the U.S. Then they can get a Chinese communist elected and take over our country.


  2. babaje2 Says:


    Thanks for taking the time to read my blog and offer a comment. I appreciate it.

    I guess “struck down” isn’t the same as “found unconstitutional.” Either way, the provision to prevent a corporation from contributing money to a particular candidate is now gone, along with other provisions allowing the federal government to tell a PRIVATE company what they can spend their money on and when.

    If you think that campaigns don’t get money from corporations already, you are as naiive as you are uninformed. The Obama presidency was bought and paid for by GE, CBS, and ABC. It was also supported by labor unions and foreign countries, China included, I’m sure. They already have lobbyists on Capitol Hill, working on exactly the kind of stuff you describe, which scares the crap out of me. But, I think it’s time for somebody besides Saul Alinsky and Keith Olbermann to have a say in who gets elected.

    The scenario you present has one flaw: the ratification of a constitutional amendment. If the Chinese can buy off every representative and senator (plausible, I’ll give you that) and every member of the states’ ratification committee, (not as likely), then we might as well move to Haiti.

    Thanks again. Keep reading my blog, please, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: