EPSTEIN DEMOLISHES THE LEFT'S ANTI-"CITIZENS UNTIED" POSITION

THE LEFT IS INCORRECTLY BLAMING BARRETT'S/OBAMA'S LOSS IN WISCONSIN ON MONEY AND CITIZEN'S UNTIED, AS IF THE SCOTUS DECISION "OPENED THE FLOODGATES" FOR THE KOCH BROTHERS AND EVIL "BIG CORPORATIONS".


UPDATE: ATTACKING CITIZEN'S UNITED IS THEIR ALL-PURPOSE EXCUSE.

THEY ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS - AND ON PRINCIPLE.

FACT: THE LEFT WASN'T OUTSPENT BY 8-1 OR 7-1 OR EVEN 2-1, AS THEY CLAIM.

AND THE LEFT IS WRONG IN PRINCIPLE TO BLAME THE RECENT CITIZEN'S UNITED DECISION, AND SUPER-PACS.

HERE'S AN EXCERPT FROM A MUST READ ESSAY BY ONE OF THE SMARTEST MEN IN THE WORLD, RICHARD EPSTEIN. WHO IS HE? HERE:

Richard A. Epstein, the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. His areas of expertise include constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights. His most recent books are Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011), The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Press, 2009) and Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (Oxford Press, 2008).

EPSTEIN (RESPONDING TO LEFTIST JEFFREY TOOBIN'S ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORKER):

The narrow issue in Citizens United was whether Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute attack documentary, counted as “electioneering communication” that could be banned from running within 30 days of the election. 

The larger constitutional issues would not disappear if Citizens United only handed down a narrow decision that the McCain-Feingold Act did not apply to that movie. The next case down the road would be sure to raise the same overarching issues. 

It is therefore incumbent on Toobin to explain why the general guarantee that Congress shall “make no law abridging the freedom of speech” does not apply to political speech in the run up to a national election. 

Clearly, it makes no sense to exclude corporations systematically from the First Amendment simply because corporations, whether or not they are persons, are not mentioned in the constitutional text. 

After all, the First Amendment doesn’t refer to citizens either. 

But the logic for bringing corporations under its protection parallels those used in connection with the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Does Toobin really think that the New Yorker, as part of the press, could be somehow prevented from publishing because it is a corporation bereft of any First Amendment protection? No: The magazine did not lose the protections of the First Amendment when its partners decide to incorporate it. 

So why are progressives so uneasy about the case? 

It is not because the decision, on its face, favors one side in the political struggles over another. Nor does it attempt to censor some political viewpoints while allowing others to be advanced with impunity.

HERE'S WHY:

THE LEFT IS  ENTIRELY FOCUSED ON GAINING POWER TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH TO ITS FACTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF "ECONOMIC JUSTICE" - (AS IF EMPOWERING POLITICIANS, LOBBYISTS AND BUREAUCRATS TO DECIDE WHO DESERVES WHAT WAS SOMEHOW MORE MORAL THAN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO KEEP WHAT THEY EARNED!).


OTHER THAN THAT, THE LEFT IS ENTIRELY UNPRINCIPLED AND OPPOSES OR FAVORS THINGS ONLY ON A SHORT TERM/AD HOC BASIS, AND THEREFORE THEY CAN SUBORDINATE ANYTHING TO ACHIEVE POWER AND SERVE THE FACTIONS THAT COMPRISE THEIR BASE.

EVEN THE TRUTH.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY. VOTE ROMNEY.