Thursday, January 28, 2010

And George Will naturally defends the Supremes

Mr. Will brings up a number of topics relating to the FEC:

First, the Sierra Club case in which they were fined for passing out campaign literature regarding candidates for office. This is a case in which the Sierra Club had the same rights as news media. Both are able to express their opinion on the election through their normal channels. Neither was allowed to pass out pamphlets funded by thier corporate treasuries. Either would have been fined, there was no exemption for a media corporation.

Is printing and selling new paper like pamphlet? No, the news paper is sold as part of the normal news business, and the law cannot prevent publishers from organizing as corporations. The Sierra Club could also, and they do, print a magazine in which their normal readers are free to read Sierra Club endorsements. Neither could take their corporate monies and set out to pass around election pamphlets. The Sierra Club with is associated media outlets is as close to a media company as they claim, yet had no exemption from direct electioneering. The media exemption Congress allows is moot and simply represents the limited intelligence of the Congressional body.

George points out the the FEC regulations are complicated and messy. All federal law is, that is why we always want less of it. But complicated and messy is not unconstitutional.

Then he reprints this remark:

"Cleta Mitchell, Washington's preeminent campaign finance attorney, rightly says that few for-profit corporations will jeopardize their commercial interests by engaging in partisan politics"

OK, then we change constitutional law because of what Cleta thinks? Completely irrelevant.

The George mentions:

"Undaunted, advocates of government control of political speech want Congress to enact public financing of congressional campaigns,..."

This case was not about undaunted regulators of political speech, it was about undaunted regulators of the corporate treasury, a regulation of which is by common consent between the stockholders and the legislature. Corporations engage legislatures and submit to regulations of the corporate treasury for the specific reason of attracting stockholders. It is all voluntary, and Citizens United did not have to incorporate, they could have remained a PAC, hence Citizens United agreed apriori, to regulation of their corporate treasury.

George is only a moderately smart man.

No comments: