Not much happening out there that’s interesting, and I include in that Springfield’s announcement of SAINT. Might end up being a good launch date for Springfield if Hillary wins, though I’ve seen some speculation by people in the know that we the people might be a bit panicked out. I largely stopped doing too much shooting the past 5 years mainly due to lack of time and money.
I guess there’s some news:Â Bloomberg continues to crap money all over flyover country in an effort to buy elections. Years ago I used to be able to assure lawmakers that the gun control groups didn’t have the money for that kind of oppo anymore, but thanks to Bloomberg, now they do. They even have money, apparently, to help write TV shows. I watched a few episodes of the new Hawaii Five-O and thought it was dog shit.
I do not agree with the left about Citizen’s United, because I very strongly believe in free speech. But do I think it’s fundamentally fair that one rich guy can buy his political preference against millions of other Americans who don’t have that kind of money? No. But I can understand why many on the left feel that way. Their solution to the problem, silencing people, is both politically and morally wrong. But I can understand the desire to do it.
“I do not agree with the left about Citizen’s United, because I very strongly believe in free speech.”
I agreed with the Citizens United decision for a purely constitutional reason, that had nothing to do with the “personhood” of corporations or any of the other nonsense debated. My analysis was, simply, that the First Amendment says “congress shall make no law. . .” It says nothing about the nature of the entities those laws may apply to.
However, I knew I would hate the outcomes of the Citizens United decision, and I do. I therefor support a very carefully crafted constitutional amendment that defines campaign spending as speech outside the protection of the First Amendment.
We already routinely accept exceptions such as Oliver Wendell Holmes somewhat dopey metaphor of “crying fire in a crowded theater.” We tend to forget that at the time, he was saying that criticizing government policy during a war was the equivalent to “crying fire,” that enabled sending literally hundreds of U.S. citizens to prison simply for being anti-war dissidents.
For decades I was inclined to accept the right-libertarian, laissez faire view that anything that could be achieved via economics was a pure human right. Slowly I came to realize that economics can be and always has been weaponized and used to exercise coercion as much as any firearm or bomb. To the extent I ever apologized for such coercion, I was a schlemiel for those wielding the weapon.
Political spending can be and often is used coercively. I can be shouted down by a gang of corporate front men just as effectively as I could be shot down by an armed militia on their payroll. The fact that I am still alive does not change that I have been neutralized and rendered powerless. Citizens United established that presently, there can be no limits placed on such coercion.
> I can be shouted down by a gang of corporate front men
Citizens United enables us to band together to shout back. Without that protection, your free speech would be exercised only in media that you can personally afford. The rich and powerful would still use the media they control to preach their message, and you would be voiceless. Citizens United empowers you to organize with like-minded people and chip in for a TV commercial that you could never afford on your own.
This! Listen to Rod!
A million poor people can band together in a corporation (like the NRA) and run their own ads they can fund with small contributions.
Without this ability, ALL we would hear would be what media corporations and politicians want us to hear!
The answer to political speech we don’t like isn’t government punishing speech, but MORE speech!
“Citizens United enables us to band together to shout back.”
A good argument, as long as you believe Citizens United represents “us.”
They spend as much money to convince us they do, as they spend on campaigns.
I say that as someone who was one of their contributing schlemiels for years.
I was referring to the court’s ruling, not the CU organization itself.
And I was referring not so much to CU itself, uniquely, as to all of the dark money organizations.
Having been more closely associated with some of them, than the average supporter, I can tell you their real agendas have little to do with what they tell us, in order to extract our money.
You’d be frightened if you understood how alone in the world “us” is.
Remember the Left makes use of the protections offered by Citizens United, case in point Michael Moore’s recent release of Trumpland. Doesn’t seem to bother him “today”.
All great comments! Whetherman, your paragraphs about the First Amendment and “fire in a theatre” were awesome!!! I hadn’t thought about the 1A in that light before, but I’m convinced you’re absolutely right – it is not select about whom it protects, only whom it restrains (Congres). Rod’s counterpoints were insightful as well. I learned much today, and it was good. Thank you, gentleman!!! I am bookmarking this post!
Respectfully, Arnie
“Selective,” not “select.”
Oh and, “Congress,” not “Congres.”