There are massive moves on the left to stifle the freedom of speech.

Of course they tell massive lies.  Corporations are restricted on what they can donate to candidates.  They however can take out issue advocacy ads and donate to issue advocacy groups.  But hear it right out of their own mouths.


Funny thing is that they don’t want to take money out of politics, they just want to silence those they choose to steal from.  Yes that’s a harsh statement but it’s the only thing that makes sense.  They make the wild claim that corporations own the government and then in the next breath they call for more regulations.  I guess you just can’t argue with circular logic.  Of course the obvious cure is not to punish business.  They want to survive.  The cure is to take away the power of the federal government and to pass laws that criminalize politicians who do pass laws that favor one group or business over another.


But to start out let’s look at what Citizens United really says.

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering  communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. . . . These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship. Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. . . . Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” . . . . If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect. Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.

So contrary to the spin the left puts on this it is a direct attack on the first amendment. Vicki McKenna a conservative talk show host spoke of this this morning when she interviewed Eric O’Keefe this morning.

Most people don’t know who he is but he and many other people were subject to Gestapo type predawn raids on their homes because of their political activism during the Scott Walker recall.  Those predawn raids were highlighted in John Stossel’s “Censured in America”

Here in Wisconsin they even used donor lists to intimidate businesses who donated themselves or who’s employees made political contributions You can read about that here and here .
And those on the left like Madison Mayor Paul Soglin want you to disclose your political donations as a condition of bidding on a government contract.

Again from Citizens United.

For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” . . . Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. . . . . In Buckley, the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending. 424 U. S., at 66. The McConnell Court applied this interest in rejecting facial challenges to BCRA §§201 and 311. 540 U. S., at 196. There was evidence in the record that independent groups were running election-related advertisements “‘while hiding behind dubious and misleading names.’” Id., at 197 (quoting McConnell I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 237). The Court therefore upheld BCRA §§201 and 311 on the ground that they would help citizens “‘make informed choices in the political marketplace.’” 540 U. S., at 197 (quoting McConnell I, supra, at 237); see 540 U. S., at 231. Although both provisions were facially upheld, the Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “‘reasonable probability’” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.’” Id., at 198 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 74).”

As I stated above we have seen the donor lists used to harass and intimidate.  If there is corruption in government it is done by the officials themselves and not the public at large.  No speech should be limited in order to give the illusion of fairness.  More speech is better speech and one can always consider the source.