Two strange concepts

  • Follow Letters

It was as recent as 1976 that the Supreme Court first introduced the idea that money counts as speech – a slippery slope that has since then reduced to a vanishing point the effort to control political contributions.

In 2010, the John Roberts court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations have rights under the Constitution to freedom of speech to contribute unlimited amounts of money for political purposes, even to the point of not needing to identify the givers – another new slippery slope.

In a case now before the court, five justices, perhaps all men, will decide whether a corporation, in this case Hobby Lobby, has the right to refuse on religious grounds some types of contraception for their female employees – all who are real people who may have a good basis for wanting those specific, legal drugs. It’s a new branch of the slope. What’s next?

In 1788, the new Constitution opened with the famous words “We the people.” By 2010, it should be “We the people, but also the wealthy and corporate interests.”

The men with their billion-dollar bankrolls, as well as business money, now dominate our politics. Our democracy already is sorely threatened by this shift to monied interests in our elections. The only way to reverse this may be to re-examine and limit these two odd concepts: that money is speech, and that corporations are people. That will depend on the justices the next president will appoint.

Victor Reilly

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
deestafford
32185
Points
deestafford 04/05/14 - 04:35 am
13
2
The left's ox has been gored....

The left's ox has been gored. Its patronage of unions and leftist groups and organizations has always allowed it to raise more money than the right and they were happy with that unlevel playing field. Now that the SCOTUS has rightfully ruled that corporations are made up of people and have the same rights they are squealing like a stuck pig.

The major donors who donate the most money to political organizations and causes are left leaning liberals. One has to wade well down the list of major contributors before one finds a conservative person or organization supporting the right.

The recent ruling still has restrictions and limits on how much money can be donated to an individual or one party.

As far as identifying the donors to political causes go one needs to look only at what recently happened in California whereby the CEO of a company he founded was fired by the board because the homosexual fascists discovered he gave $1000 to Prop 8 five or so years ago. Prop which passed by a wide margin stipulated that marriage was between a man and a woman. At the time of the passing of the law California did not have a law that made it mandatory that political supporters names had to be made public--it since has passed a law--but that didn't stop the homosexuals from illegal obtaining this man's name recently and causing him to lose his job. So, the idea of full disclosure of political donors names is not a good idea when one sees how the "tolerant" untolerant left destroys people for expressing their beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

If there is one thing the left hates is a level playing field because lies and deceit are the vanguards of their tactics in elections.

localguy55
5477
Points
localguy55 04/05/14 - 05:13 am
7
2
Great retort deestafford. It

Great retort deestafford. It is true when it comes to regulating the unions, the left steadfastly refuses to do so. And FYI Victor, corporations are made of individuals.

I say let the money flow. I would rather have private business owners decide the direction of our country then a bunch of union thugs.

At least I know that a free market will emerge from those people engaged in commerce.

Collective bargaining sounds so fair to the worker until it ruins the business and it relocates to another country.

Unions have two histories. One in the being of the industrial revolution when robber barons failed to address grievances of the worker. I would have supported a union then.

However, there is a more insidious history of the unions when they grew to become a monster no longer serving the interest of the worker but serving the union elite.

They began to suck the financial life out of big companies and ultimately killed many of them. This is the dark history of unions they won't tell you about.

Bizkit
35740
Points
Bizkit 04/05/14 - 06:39 am
7
2
Progressives always shoot

Progressives always shoot down the "slippery slope" when conservatives use it for various posits, so I think that part of your argument will fall short. Corporations are people is in line with Obama's "you didn't build that-it's the people". What's the difference? Why can't Hobby Lobby do that if liberals are going to force Mozilla executive out when he denoted 1000 bucks in 2008 (when Obama endorsed DOMA) to DOMA? Seems as law stands they both have the right to do it. Is it right is another question. Seems if Hobby Lobby only want to hire Christians CEOs and follow policy why not-just as Mozilla can force out their brilliant inventive CEO because he doesn't support gay marriage. Freedom can be a nasty business trying to accommodate all beliefs and ideology, but when there is retribution for such beliefs then we are heading down the slippery slope of a lack of civility and freedom. Which is where we are quickly heading.

ymnbde
10752
Points
ymnbde 04/05/14 - 07:40 am
7
2
the above posters may have misunderstood

i think Mr. Reilly was writing about George Soros
and how his money should not be allowed to influence politics
especially moveon and his other organizations of that type
and Mr. Soros isn't even a citizen!
thank you, Mr. Reilly, for "speaking" out against Mr. Soros
and it didn't cost you a dime
free speech... ain't it wonderful?
(oh, and Mr Reilly, you may have not gotten the updated free speech mandate... to classify some Supreme Court justices as "men" is misandristic and misandry has reached entry level status in the banned word list on the latest 5 year review to the acceptable words free speech code and since diversity is only bonafide when it conforms to the diversity codes you may want to ban any word representing gender from your list of acceptable thoughts... our very concept of free speech demands it)...
please send future letters to the democratic acceptable free speech review board for approval

dichotomy
37614
Points
dichotomy 04/05/14 - 09:29 am
6
2
Gee, I never hear Victor

Gee, I never hear Victor complain about the money flowing to the Democrats from people like George Soros and the unions. Did I miss it? Methinks you are a bit of a hypocrite Victor.

"money is speech, and that corporations are people"

Money is certainly speech, no question about it. That is why Obama spends most of his time fund raising for the Democrats. And corporations are certainly comprised of people and are subject to taxes, laws and regulations made up by politicians SO OF COURSE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. Denying them participation is taxation without representation. They certainly have as much right to participate as UNIONS.

Scratch
150
Points
Scratch 04/05/14 - 10:13 am
4
1
"Corporate" Means "Body"

Apparently Mr. Reilly is unaware that the term "corporation" stems from the Latin term "corpore" essentially meaning "body." It isn't that corporations are made up of people, but that a corporation must legally be treated as a single person, with all the rights attending to a citizen. The same principle means that corporations may be sued, just as an individual can be sued. If Mr. Reilly condemns the decision permitting corporations to fund political causes, then he must in turn condemn a citizen's right to sue those corporations. I sincerely doubt he would support that. He would advocate, I submit, that corporations would bear all risk of liability without any representation in affecting the policy decision-making process. Yes, that is supremely hypocritical.

Little Lamb
49247
Points
Little Lamb 04/05/14 - 10:29 am
6
2
Government Controls

Victor Reilly wrote:

. . . a slippery slope that has since then reduced to a vanishing point the effort to control political contributions.

Well, Mr. Reilly, why is it that the left wing desires to control everything about our private lives, our businesses, our associations, our health, our schools, and more? What is this obsession the left wing has about controlling others?

One thing that the left wing should ponder: since 1976 (the year Reilly says the slippery slope began) U.S. government has moved steadily left, until now we can be considered a truly fascist state; and the momentum is more leftward toward socialism. You would think the liberals would applaud the Supreme Court's affirmation of unlimited political contributions, since more political contributions has led to bigger and bigger government!

dahreese
4909
Points
dahreese 04/05/14 - 10:42 am
0
0
The comments above (the usual
Unpublished

The comments above (the usual daily choir) reflect their inability to grasp just how much they contribute to their own demise.

Although they would deny it, all they are doing is supporting corporate rights to control THEM.

And I dare say "our editorial staff" is no better off.

Conservative Man
5578
Points
Conservative Man 04/05/14 - 01:24 pm
5
1
Dang!!..

…all you guys already made all my points for me!..

So I'll give the "cliff notes" version as I see it...

Mr. Reiley's objections to "money" in elections is only aimed at Republicans…not a single word against unions or Democrat left leaning "billionaires' like Soros…

When Mr. Reilly advocates getting unions out of elections AND advocates for the removal of ALL PAC monies regardless of political leanings..THEN we'll talk….

I'm not holding my breath on THAT one though...

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 04/05/14 - 02:06 pm
6
1
I have been reading Reilly's
Unpublished

I have been reading Reilly's LTEs for several years and it is obvious that ole Victory has never met a Marxist/communist he did not like.

KSL
144552
Points
KSL 04/05/14 - 06:15 pm
5
1
All day

and nobody to the defense. Telling.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 04/05/14 - 06:17 pm
8
2
Victor, Hobby Lobby is NOT
Unpublished

Victor, Hobby Lobby is NOT trying to deny any kind of birth control to ANYONE. Just like a marxist liberal to equate their not wanting to pay for their birth control with denying them birth control.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 04/05/14 - 06:24 pm
8
2
Mr. Reilly really doesn't
Unpublished

Mr. Reilly really doesn't seem to like for corporations to have first amendment rights as people do. How much you want to bet he doesn't feel the same way about unions?

jimmymac
48001
Points
jimmymac 04/05/14 - 08:35 pm
0
0
Victor
Unpublished

The man has no problem with Hollywood elites giving millions per election to both Obama's campaigns. I guess flooding the elections with rich liberal money is Ok with Victor.

Casting_Fool
1175
Points
Casting_Fool 04/05/14 - 11:46 pm
4
0
And it's not all birth

And it's not all birth control, but only a few specific drugs.

iaaffg
3152
Points
iaaffg 04/06/14 - 08:04 am
3
0
don't have an opinion on
Unpublished

don't have an opinion on this letter, since when i see this guy's name at the end of a LTE, i do not and will not read it. there's quite a few frequent writer LTE'ers i simply ignore because they spout nonsense, idiocy, hypocrisy, and propaganda for their leader and i am simply too busy and too pragmatic for such banal things to clutter up my mind and my day. in their little bubble worlds and minds, they are probably making sense; in my mind and others who have the ability to think for themselves, they are fools.

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

Stormwater fee to fund Columbia County repairs

Columbia County is set to invest an additional $600,000 in its aging stormwater system next year, with the hope that more money and manpower will result in half as many repair orders and fewer ...
Search Augusta jobs