What Cost For Free Speech?

Dear Leader has been at odds with the Supreme Court over campaign finance rules.  His reasoning is simple.  The old rules work to the advantage of incumbents, and entrenched bureaucrats.  The new rules make it easier for anyone to compete.  They actually level the field a bit.  But being 'in power' and being as corrupt as they come, any change in the current arrangements makes keeping the power more difficult so all manner of rhetoric will be used to scare the average voter into thinking that opening up campaign finance rules is bad.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The gag reel of Obamaisms suggests that the new rules will allow special interests, unions, and big business to interfere with elections.  Obama will lie his way to the grave to convince you of this.  But special interests, unions and big business already interfere, and not just during elections, but 365 days a year operating in an exclusive club to which most of us--and most any other interests--cannot afford admission.  Lobbyists, PAC's, 527's among others with large wallets, are a constant presence in Washington where they keep the revolving door spinning with incestuous public-private relationships whose common genetic marker is money in the hundreds of millions.  These 'special interets' are what give the people in power the ability to stay there.  And to make a relevant comparison to recent events, they are what is driving the liberal obsession with doing anything and everything to pass their version of health insurance reform.  So while Mr. Obama is crying about free speech money corrupting democracy, he's been busy as a bee making deals with lobbyists and special interests to bring 1/6th of the US economy under their coordinated control of his corporate-socialist-bureaucratic-utopian regime.

It's always been about closing deals with special interests that will allow the revolving door and the money to flow to the connected deal makers and elitist incumbents at the exclusion of all others.

So any money that could challenge those already entrenched is considered dangerous. It is money they do not control and it allows people outside the elite community (from both parties) to knock holes in the barriers to admission.  It gives a political voice to someone who may not already have skin in the game, and permits them to support an idea or a candidate who is not (not yet at least) plugged into the Georgetown Matrix.

Paul Hodes is plugged into the Georgetown Matrix. He's a big money insider. And while he's been complaining about the process he's been taking money from insurance and investment companies, banks and bankers like Goldman Sachs, and hordes of left wing special interests.  So when he came out against the Supreme Court decision, even said he'd sponsor a bill to put those restrictions back in place, he wasn't defending free speech he was protecting his own special interest--the big fat tube running from his campaign to the DC money machine. And protect it he will. Free speech is dangerous to Paul Hodes; so speech with enough money behind it to begin to compete with his well funded war chest can't be anything but unconstitutional.

Hodes is one of many poster children for the problem.

Political speech cannot be restricted based on how much it costs to exercise if for no other reason than that those in power will make it their perennial mission to simply price everyone else out of the market.  And if they can't price them out, they will legislate them out.  

Only an utter fool, or an entrenched elitist would willingly leave the definition of political speech in the hands of those who are the greatest risk from it, or limit it based it on how much it costs; but as we can see from the reactions of liberals and their fellow travelers we have both in abundance.

Comments

[NH INSIDER]

Steve,

Good analysis...

Wasn't it Mr Obama that said he would obey campaign finance regulations and take the Gov't money, then changed his mind when he realized that he could bury McCain who was taking Gov't money for his campaign.

That opened up the World to Obama's bundlers who raised Millions of $$$ from all over the World to help Obama institute his vision of the "Demise of America". Europe has been trying to find a way to Stop America so they could compete with their Socialized Governments. Against the Constitution? Who cares as long as it benefits the Progressives!

Yes the old Liberal tune "Do as I say not as I do"

Work Hard Have Fun!
Bob DeMaura

[Steve Mac Donald]

There have been noises about limiting the lobbyist relationship to government money and campaigns as well, but that still seems contrary to the ruling about speech and money.

While I've long been indifferent to term limits, I'm beginning to think it may be the only way to sever the longer term relationship between money and government, and specific representatives in particular. I'm still working that debate out in my head though.