advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

FREE TO SPEND WHERE YOU CHOOSE

By
Neal Boortz
@ September 10, 2009 8:58 AM Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court is hearing an interesting case at the moment over campaign finance laws. Now ... if you are a regular listener to the Neal Boortz Show, you will know that I am not a fan of campaign finance reform. McCain-Feingold. When in doubt, I default to freedom. And in this case, I am talking about the freedom to contribute whatever you choose to whomever you choose.

The case currently being heard are concerns a political film, "Hillary: The Movie." The movie was produced by Citizens United, a non-profit group, but the funds to produce the movie were donated by corporations. Let's face it, the movie wasn't kind to Hillary Clinton. Then again, she's not what you would call a kind person anyway. Anyway ... the movie was blocked from being aired by the Federal Election Commission because it believed to be violating campaign finance restrictions. The FEC cited that the sole purpose of the documentary was "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her." And the problem is??

Think about this: How many anti-Bush movies were out there during his campaigns? Remember that slug Michael Moore? Corporate money funded those films as well. Where was the FEC while Moore was spreading his venom?

The justices don't seem to be buying it. Based on the line of questioning, it seems like the justices believe laws banning corporations and unions from buying TV ads for political candidates discriminates against the first amendment rights of mom and pop businesses.

John McCain wasn't too thrilled to hear about this. He says, "The questioning shows a real disconnect, a strong disconnect between the justices and political reality ... I wish that one of the justices who were standing up for people's First Amendment rights had ever run for county sheriff. He says that the justices showed an "extreme naiveté of the influence of corporate money and soft money."

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: FREE TO SPEND WHERE YOU CHOOSE.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/42778

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • FREE TO SPEND WHERE YOU CHOOSE.
    It amuses me to no end that John McCain's unconstitutional law bit him in the arse during his ill-fated campaign against the Obamessiah.
    By Ubiquitous @ 09/11/09 07:35:28 AMreport abuse
  • True Alabamastan
    "If a group of citizens pools their money and run ads, is that the same as a corporate entity paying for ads? Seems different to me. I still say corporations don't have the same freedom of speech that individuals (or groups of individuals) have."

    AND individuals are limited to the amount they could contribute to the pool, even if a corporation "gave" a bunch of citizens an amount to donate (sneaky) there is no way it would ever add up to the millions spent now for contributions.

    As far as stopping the amount they spend on ads and lobbying, I'm afraid that falls under freedom of speech. We just have to determine if that "right" extends to corporations or just individuals. Interesting discussion there.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 09/10/09 03:34:08 PMreport abuse
  • Joyce &Freedom in Berkeley
    Joyce, you said what I was trying to say, only much more clearly.

    As for the comment from Freedom in Berkeley, you assume alot about my beliefs. If a group of citizens pools their money and run ads, is that the same as a corporate entity paying for ads? Seems different to me. I still say corporations don't have the same freedom of speech that individuals (or groups of individuals) have.
    By Alabamastan @ 09/10/09 02:59:46 PMreport abuse
  • Hillary The Hut
    Hillary is a crooked bitch, and so is her husband. She's basically an untalented, personality-free Arkansas attorney who has now magically become Secretary of State. And she didn't even have to sleep with anybody. I mean think about it; who would sleep with that fat, buck-toothed toad anyway?

    ....just thinking out-loud
    By stepcousin @ 09/10/09 01:47:55 PMreport abuse
  • @Frank Sanders
    If they have no ability to lobby Congress, corporations are sitting ducks for any and every kind of punitive regulation and taxation the government wants to lay on them. Which hurts US in the long run. Government cripples industry in this country as it is. Can you imagine what it would do if it no longer had any incentive to play nice with corporations?

    Banking and credit card laws protect the banks? And just whose assets are being protected in those banks? Why, the money of the banks' customers, of course. Are you suggesting those protections be taken away?

    You want a loser pays all system? Then basically only people who can afford to shell out huge sums of money, will be able to afford to sue at all. You think that's a good idea?

    Say what you want about the trade imbalance with China, but that trade is why you can buy shirts, underwear, and a host of other things at reasonable prices. If the labor unions hadn't driven wages for U.S. textile workers through the roof, thus driving up prices, we might not have that massive trade imbalance. For now, I'm thankful for the lower prices.

    Health insurance laws? Other than allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, what else do you see as a problem?

    The UAW.... Okay, I agree with that one. The UAW is doing to the American auto industry what unions did to the American textile and steel industries. They are the reason why you can't buy a car for less than $13,000.

    Show me where Congress "answering to corporations" is causing us a real problem anywhere. Lobbying is essentially bribery from corporations to keep government from crippling them. It's the old 'protection' racket.

    Xqqme has it right -- the problem is corruption in government. Fix THAT problem.
    By Reason @ 09/10/09 01:15:24 PMreport abuse
  • with this in mind..........................
    this osamabama admistration doesn't give a crap what you think or believe in........I have said this before....the constitution is not worth the paper it's printed on with this bunch of scumsuckin'thugs from chitown....the truth is not part of their vocabulary........osamabama is a lyin' scumsuckin'muslimfascistmarxistsumbitch....did I spel everything rite?????

    you go Scrap Iron.......

    Joyce M/B.....a'gin??????oxoxoxoxoxox
    By butt neckid @ 09/10/09 12:25:48 PMreport abuse
  • Hillary Film
    If Congress weren't raiding the pockets of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens, there would be no reason to bribe members of Congress, and all of the corruption would go away.

    Let me repeat: it is the corruption of the Congress by Congress in the form of handing out favors and government largess stolen from honest hardworking citizens against their will, and in violation of the Constitution that is the root corruption and allows the other monied corruptions to take place at all.

    If you want to kill the tree (corruption) you must srike at the root.
    By xqqme @ 09/10/09 12:14:38 PMreport abuse
  • Can't regulate free speech
    But if you cannot vote, you shouldn't be able to contribute funds. Corporations don't vote. They should not be contributing.

    But a film is a different issue. Like Libertarian said, it was not shown on tv. I don't think they have a case.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 09/10/09 12:06:16 PMreport abuse
  • To Alalbamstan
    The United States Constitution is NOT a list of citizen rights (did you learn that in your local government indoctrination center?). The Constitution is a list of LIMITS on the federal governemnt. Foe example, the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." How is this a citizens's right? It is a limit on government.
    Please go back to school (but not a government school) and this time, do your homework.
    By Scrap Iron @ 09/10/09 12:02:35 PMreport abuse
  • Alabamastan
    Uhh, the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations do have rights just like citizens do...until you get a court packed full of Sotomayors who think otherwise, you're not gonna get anywhere. But this legislation regulates non-corporate speech, too, like the NRA. Now you probably don't like the NRA because you think only cops and criminals should have guns, but us who want our 2nd Amendment rights protected in Washington collectively get together and pool our meager funds into a group whose sum is very large; that way we can have our voices heard. M-F would prevent the NRA from running ads before an election that tells voters "such-and-such candidate is wrong on guns." 1st Amendment violation? You bettcha
    By freedom in berkeley @ 09/10/09 11:29:12 AMreport abuse
  • Campaign Cotributions
    The problem with corporate campaign contributions and lobbyists is that corporations can influence the politicians to work in their favor, even if it means hurting the public.
    All we have to do is look at the banking and credit card laws (protects the bank, not the customer), the tort laws (no loser pays all system), import and export laws (massive trade imbalance with China), the health insurance laws (insurance company oligopolies), the UAW, etc to see that lobbyists have too big an influence on government. It doesn't matter if you're a republican or a democrat, politicians are too influenced by campaign contributions and usually answer to corporations, not the voters, once they are in office.
    By Frank Sanders @ 09/10/09 11:15:23 AMreport abuse
  • Hilary Film
    People are having a misconception about this issue. The FEC prevented the film from being shown on television, not in theaters or other venues. Only on television. Of course, if they can deny this they can deny anything.

    The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. "Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..." How they get around this is why we have the troubles with an overgrown and power hunger government in the first place. And the people are too ignorant to understand what is going on.
    By Libertarian @ 09/10/09 10:42:27 AMreport abuse
  • Individual rights
    The Bill of Rights lists the rights of CITIZENS of the United States. Citizens, as in people, individuals. Corporations do not have individual rights, including the right to freedom of speech. As far as I'm concerned, any citizen can give as much money to any candidate as he/she wants. Corporations can and should be regulated.
    By Alabamastan @ 09/10/09 10:26:38 AMreport abuse
  • McCain
    I've always meant to ask Mr. "So Called Free Speech" McCain is his campaign finance law -- the one that destroyed free political activity -- worked. I mean, Washington must be sooo clean right now. No corruption or special interests to be seen.

    Right? Right?!
    By MikeS @ 09/10/09 09:31:04 AMreport abuse
  • John McLame
    Hopefully the Supremes will find this awful FEC law unconstitutional! And how do you like McLame's response? Yeah, the major parties DON'T want other voices heard other than the party line! Other than his party affiliation, milky skin tone, and may being less radical on health care, McLame would have carried on Omaba like policies! Way to go R's Until you give me a person to vote for, the Libertarians will continue to get my vote!
    By Michael @ 09/10/09 09:23:50 AMreport abuse
  • Um, kind of late
    Yeah, Hillary did not even when the primary election. I would hope republicans can one day learn to spend their money wisely and not on every moot topic that they cry about.
    By Lane Meyer @ 09/10/09 09:22:38 AMreport abuse
  • John McCain
    He needs to shut up on this one. I think he's a decent guy and god knows he paid a real debt in service of his country, but McCain-Feingold is a ruinous piece of paper not fit to line the bottom of my parakeet's cage.
    By Randy @ 09/10/09 09:20:10 AMreport abuse
  • Strange Days
    What a screwed up time we live in; Michael Moore releases a film full of outright lies about 9/11, and he and the film are embraced by much of society. Some people make a film full of TRUTH about a political candidate, and they are barred from airing it.

    When will common, decent people stand up to this kind of nonsense?
    By Jon Miller @ 09/10/09 09:19:54 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement