Rational Nation USA

At the certain risk of antagonizing the intractable and emotional left further (and oh how I love it) I have decided to revisit the recent Supreme Court decision with respect to free speech and campaign finance law. Having covered this in an earlier post  I decided to endeavor to find additional rational arguments (note I did not say emotional) that would lend further perspective and light on the subject. After visiting several sites I found perhaps one of the most compelling arguments I have yet heard in support of the Courts decision. Here are a few short excerpts: "The ruling threw out limits on corporate "independent expenditures" on campaign advertising — the case in point being a hatchet-job documentary on Hillary Clinton produced by a non-profit corporation called Citizens United. Government censorship of political documentaries certainly seems to violate the very sinews of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech...

The Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, on  this Thursday overturned a six decade old law designed to limit the influence of large corporations and unions on elections. The new ruling will allow for unlimited spending by both large business and unions in support of, or opposition to candidates for Congress and the presidency. The six decade old law essentially prohibited labor unions and companies from using monies from their general treasuries for the purpose of producing and running campaign ads. The reversal however leaves intact the prohibition on direct contributions from businesses and unions. The decision of the court also overturned the McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill which prohibited corporate and union funded issue ads in the final days of a campaign. The case brought before the High Court by Citizens United, was framed essentially as a first amendment issue. That is the right of organizatio...