Free Speech and Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap


June 19, 2010 | 9:59 PM

Free Speech and Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

Free Speech and Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

Ah, if only the Founding Fathers could see what we have done with the First Amendment. From anarchists burning the US flag to hosting a veteran’s parade, we run the spectrum here in the US. While free speech comes with a whole assortment of issues with it, at the end of the day you take the good with the bad. In 2002, RINO US Senator from Arizona John McCain teamed up with Wisconsin Democrat US Senator Russ Feingold to create the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act a/k/a “McCain-Feingold” . The bill limited corporate and organizational contributions on federal candidates for office 30 days out on a primary and 60 days out from a general election. It was an un-Constitutional assault on free speech and one of the many reasons Republicans got run out of congressional control for allowing this type of tripe to pass for law.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If I own a corporation and want to use that money to support my candidate, I have that right. Well, had it until McCain-Feingold made the political world more “fair”. After this bill passed, the special interest groups figured out how to use 527 PACS and the bill had a bunch of air taken out of it.  However, if did not have a PAC or desired to be a part of one, you rights under this bill were restricted.

In the 2008 Presidential election, Citizens United wanted to launch a documentary film and ads against Hillary Clinton and the FEC would not permit it. Citizens United is a conservative group that receives corporate funding and the FEC stated these ads and movie violated McCain-Feingold. Citizens United filed a lawsuit (as we ordinary citizens should have done when this bill passed in the first place) against the FEC for violation of their First Amendment rights. Google Citizens United vs. FEC for more details on the cause. In January of 2010 the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision agreed with Citizens United. Thus, McCain-Feingold has been tossed and corporations and organizations can donate again.

Well, the House Democrats could have nothing like that. The libs in Congress want total control and recognize it costs money to elect candidates. They were not about to allow Republican leaning organizations and businesses to get conservatives back in office with healthy donations. Before the ink could dry on the Citizens United decision, the House Dems introduced The DISCLOSE Act.  Forget that pesky Supreme Court and checks & balances – they want their Utopia. 

The DISCLOSE Act is designed to stop what they believe is the effect of the Citizens United case: The removal of the ban on corporate and special interest money contributions to political campaigns. Among other things, the Act:

  • Requires public disclosure of campaign-related spending by corporations, unions, and others
  • Helps prevent foreign companies from influencing US elections by closing a “loophole” allowing US-based but foreign-owned companies to make campaign contributions
  • Requires corporations, unions, and others to clearly identify themselves as sponsors of political ads they pay for

Now I have no issue with transparency or disclosure on campaign finances, you can get all the info you want on any candidate at . That, however, is not the purpose of this act. This act, which has not passed either chamber of congress yet, is designed to allow liberal watchdog groups easy access to conservative donor bases for the purpose of harassing them through threats of boycott, strikes, and other actions of the sort.

Now how do I know this is the heart of this act? Let’s talk about the recent deal the NRA cut with House Dems to be exempt from the proposed act. The NRA has been against this bill since its proposed inception. No problem there on my part, but the NRA must have been nervous that the bill is going to pass because this week they were able to get an exemption from it. That meant a deal with the libs and New York Democrat US Rep Chuck Schumer. Why would the NRA do this? To protect their donor list as provided for under the Second Amendment. So – sell out the First Amendment to keep the Second??? What a sinful, dirty little deed.  No Patriot check mark this week for the NRA.

The reality of all this is that The DISCLOSE Act is one more attempt by elites to have different levels of “free” speech in their controlled and coordinated manner. Put this act down as one more to make the call rounds on in DC to remind these buffoons that we are watching.