Unions slated for another free pass
Does anyone remember the president’s State of the Union Address this past January…the one where he blasted the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case? In case you’ve forgotten, you can review it here.
Basically, the Supreme Court held that the government couldn’t place restraints on the rights of people to express their opinion in, shall we say, “campaign infomercials”, as such restraints violated the First Amendment’s right of freedom of speech. The president, however, “took issue with the decision” (a nice way of saying that the president was flat out wrong in his explanation). The president called the decision,
…a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.
And, he exhorted Congress to do something about it.
It now appears that Congress is complying. Senator Schumer (D. N.Y.), and Representative Van Hollen (D. Md.) have introduced bills, seemingly drafted by the White House, that, among other things,
…would prevent government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of the Troubled Asset Relief Program from spending money on U.S. elections.
Forgetting for the moment that such a ban is clearly unconstitutional, let’s first focus on the part of the proposal banning government contractors from spending money on elections.
If, as proponents claim, their worry is that a company will use campaign contributions to win government contracts (pay-to-play), why does their bill not show equal concern that labor unions will support candidates with the goal of getting government contracts driven to union companies?
Anyone care to guess which political party is generally supported by oil companies, banks and insurance companies; and, which political party is generally supported by labor? I suppose, then, that it should come as no surprise that between the House and the Senate, only two Republicans are supporting this blatant attempt to stifle the free speech of those thought to disagree with the current administration.
Does it say something that I'm commenting on this topic on Mother's Day?
"Anyone care to guess which political party is generally supported by oil companies, banks and insurance companies; and, which political party is generally supported by labor? "
OOOH! OOOH! *shoots hand up and waves at teacher!* Let ME guess!
What constitution? Oh, wait…that wasn't the question…but it seems to always be the answer!
Correct me if I am wrong but if our founders designed a system in which the different branches were separated for the express purpose of "balancing" power between them, how is it that government seems to disregard itself and go ahead with all of these crazy things aimed at distorting government even further than it already is? Oh wait, I forgot, we ran away from home (Europe) and now we're trying to get back on the folks' good side.
"…would prevent government contractors and corporate beneficiaries of the Troubled Asset Relief Program from spending money on U.S. elections."
Okay, let's hypothesize that for some inexplicable reason, the SCOTUS says this is permissible. One wonders out loud if this concept could be extrapolated to ALL recipients of the government's largesse, i.e. welfare recipients, those on unemployment, workers for any state or municipality that receives government funding, and my favorite, anyone that receives grants or any funding from the government, such as most science labs, public and private schools etc. Don't forget "free" health care!! 😉
You catch my drift? This is just another case of the liberal dumb asses not looking before they legislate, and utterly failing to consider the consequences of their knee jerk law making. They aren't just cutting off their noses to spite their faces; they are cutting off their heads.