Sady Doyle tries to take a stab and making the case that all of humanity should be outraged and demand that a constitutional amendment be passed to overturn the ruling that allows for profit corporations to enjoy free speech protections.
The primary argument seems to be that a corporation isn't a person, legally or otherwise. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that liberals would come to that conclusion. After all, if an unborn human being doesn't count as a person why should a corporation?
Her "logic" falls apart rapidly when she compares corporations to other entities that enjoy the same freedoms that corporations do after the Citizens United case. What constitutes all of these groups? Let's examine.
Corporation - A group of people (investors, employees, directors) that combine their efforts to further the business and make profits.
Union - A group of employees that collectively bargain for their own collective benefit. (AFL-CIO, NEA)
Non-profit group - A group of people combining resources and efforts to achieve a certain goal, unrelated to profits. (NAACP, NOW, Americans for Prosperity)
Gee, all of these things seem awfully similar. What justification could Doyle use to censor on group of people but not the other two? Easy, corporations are comprised of bad people while labor unions and non-profit organizations are the salt of the earth. Except for those rotten conservative Super PAC's of course.
Doyle makes the assertion that corporations have unlimited amounts of money and will absolutely try and buy a politician. Maybe so. I'm sure all the George Soros, Warren Buffet and Hollywood funded Super PAC's are as pure as fresh snow. Certainly labor unions have never tried any underhanded techniques, outside of assaults, lies and voter intimidation. Lets also not forget that almost all of the bailout dollars went to propping up unions across the country so the cash discrepancy that Doyle cites as a reason to discriminate against corporations is a total fabrication.
Ultimately liberals hate the Citizens United decision because it gives conservatives a chance to balance out organizational shortcoming created by the liberal activities of unions and non-profits like the NAACP. The uglier side of the argument is how liberals like Doyle simply dismiss corporations as uniformly bad. Maybe the directors are all multimillionaires who can take a hit or two but what about the legions of employees, stock holders, etc. that earn their living working for the corporations? What about all the other workers of the world who might have retirement accounts or mutual funds that include stock in these corporations? Are they inherently bad too? Why should the group they belong to be any less empowered to protect their interests than their unionized counterparts? They shouldn't be of course.
Doyle's article is a pathetic attempt to cover her own partisan shortcomings. Why is she so certain that conservative corps. can buy politicians? Because all liberal politicians have been bought and paid for buy unions and wealthy liberals, that's why. She is simply projecting the dark activities of her side onto the opposition. In typical liberal fashion, whenever they fail in their attempt to win the ideological discussion (dwindling support for unions proves the failure) they simply utilize the courts to try and legislate socialism.
Are corporations people? Of course. What else could they be? So are unions, Super PAC's, non-profits, religious groups and political parties. Combine this attack on free speech with the recent attack on religion and liberals have just about opposed all of the first amendment. Better peacefully assemble now while its still legal.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment