Admittedly indulgent

Another one that’s a bit indulgent.

This cartoon would be funny to those that know me. I’m made fun of because I have such a big interest in politics. I am currently in the process of reading the Federalist Papers.

I also included New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Woohoo!

I thought that I cartoon related to the Constitution would be appropriate today, because the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that the cap on private campaign donations is unconstitutional. Why am I happy these “evil” corporations don’t have limits when it comes to political donations?

Well, what do the Democrats tend to stand for? Shrinkage of business/employers, whether through heavy taxes or environmental restrictions. Republicans tend to favor business-friendly policies, because businesses tend to, you know, HIRE people. Right now the prominent, rich Democrats like like George Soros OWN most of the non-profits and PACs (sometimes that can be said literally). Which is fine. I don’t have a problem with that from a Constitutional standpoint. But why do the non-profits and PACs, which pour millions of dollars into Democrats’ pockets, have special privileges that corporations and yes, private citizens, don’t? I mean, business owners have a tangible interest with what goes on in Washington. Why shouldn’t they be able to contribute to campaigns? In other words, why is “for profit” such a dirty term?

Some would say this new ruling censors employees and members from their First Amendment right to not be forced to financially support the interests of their affiliated corporations. But where is that in the Constitution? If I employ and pay someone in a business that I own, and that person happens to be a flaming Democrat, how is it that I am violating their freedom of speech by donating some of the profits of MY business to a Republican campaign? Is it because of some perceived right he has to my money? Hardly. It’s MY business. He doesn’t have to be “associated” with me if he doesn’t want to. He can quit and get a new job.Why are shareholders that collectively make a decision to donate money to a campaign any different than my example? Corporations are people. They aren’t run by soulless, disinterested robots. Each shareholder OWNS a portion of that company, and it’s up to them to figure out what they do with the profits.

And another thing: why aren’t union bosses held to the same standards when they donate enormous sums of money to political candidates that union members don’t approve of? Oftentimes workers are forced to be union members, or they have to pay the dues even if they aren’t part of the union. Why is that not held to the same standard as the dirty “for profit” organizations? Hint: it’s not because they vote Republican.

McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, in this sense as well as all of the other arbitrary limits to personal speech. Virtual child pornography- okay. Pro-life pamphlets near an abortion clinic- not okay. Commercial speech is regulated less than political speech! Isn’t the latter the most important thing the First Amendment was trying to protect? This is a First Amendment issue, and would also rectify a severe lopsidedness in political speech.

That’s why.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s