- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
Free Speech under Attack
Extra Extra - Read all about it...
The headlines read that the US Chamber of Commerce is suspected of using foreign funds to support Republican candidates. Now that is a real eye catching headline isn’t it? But it isn’t true. Oh, it’s true that Democrats, and even the president, are using this theory to undermine the GOP efforts out on the campaign trail.
From the Democratic stump, this is now fact. Never mind that there is no proof. Never mind that they have no evidence to support this accusation. They don’t need proof. They just need to create a scandal against the GOP. They need to divert the attention of the American people away from the economy and the dismal record of this Congress and this administration. They once again fall back to insinuation to instill doubt in the minds of the voters.
Life line for Democrat campaigns?
As a marketing strategy for the Democratic campaigns, this may be seen as a lifeline but this ploy might have some unintended consequences. The Democrats are counting on the press and the American people to not ask questions. Questions like…Where’s the proof?
One Democratic group has gone so far as to ask
for not only an investigation but also for criminal charges to be pressed
against the US Chamber of Commerce.
Excuse Me? There is no proof that any of this is valid.They have no evidence for any of the assertions that they are making.
Guilty until proven innocent
David Axelrod, who is a spokesman for this administration stated on the Sunday talk show last week that it isn’t up to the Democrats to provide proof that foreign money is being used but that it is up to the US Chamber of Commerce to show that is isn’t.
When did this happen?
They are assumed guilty until they can
prove their innocence and why didn’t the American people get that memo? Isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Or is this another part of the change we've heard about.
He is clearly - out and out accusing the US Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds to steal American democracy and influence the election. These are some heavy charges.
And for what? What does it gain the Democrats to use this type of mudslinging?
Well for one thing, they hope to get people talking about the possibility of election improprieties. You see, people all over the country right now, are talking about the economy, which is something that the Democrats cannot neither defend or promote. So the benefit to the Democrats is immediately apparent.
What they are really trying to do is force the US Chamber of Commerce to supply them with a list of donors.
Here is where it all gets complicated.
Let's try and sort through this.
The Supreme Court, in January 2010, handed down a ruling that now allows corporations to donate to individual candidates, citing that not allowing them to donate limits their ability to exercise their free speech. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech, criticized the court for this decision stating that this would lead to foreign interests influencing the campaigns. The court, of course, denies this. It is in the rules governing PAC money and how these organizations are set up that determines whether or not their donor lists have to be made public. So we have the set up; this is the first piece of the puzzle.
Next, we look at how businesses in America view this administration. Due to the increased business taxes, a myriad of anti-business regulation and such overwhelming support for the unions, most businesses feel that this administration is anti-business and more socially minded. The whole business takeover of GM only strengthens that premise. The climate then becomes ripe for the corporate world to spend their election donations on candidates who espouse a better business atmosphere. So here then is our second piece of the puzzle.
You may ask why it is necessary for corporations to want to stay anonymous. Well here is one example. Target is a large corporate chain store. They donated to a campaign of a candidate who promises to work toward a friendlier business environment and to veto anti-business legislation. This is their right.
So far so good.
Well, this candidate also supports family values and is against gay marriage in his state. Now, even though Target has not made any comment on the gay marriage issue, the gay community has instituted a major boycott against the Target chain for being anti-gay marriage, claiming that by supporting this business friendly candidate, they are supporting the anti-gay movement. The gay demonstrators demand that Target also give a larger donation or at least an equal amount of contributions to the opposing candidate before they drop their protests.
This wasn’t just a small
protest, this was a nationwide campaign against a major corporation all because
they donated to a candidate that the gay community didn’t like. So the point is made, that the profit margin of a
corporate giant can be endangered by a group of protesters is not lost on other
So, clearly some anonymity is called for. Now the third piece of this puzzle shows us that the left wants to know who the donors are. They want to know which corporations are supporting their opponents in order to apply enough pressure to then influence these corporations, their choices and their financial support.
The last piece of this troubling puzzle is the fact that in the 2008 election, far too many questions remain unanswered about the funding of Obama’s campaign. As you may or may not know, $200 is the total amount that an individual may donate and stay anonymous. Well, in the last few months of the campaign, the under $200 contributions made on credit cards, to the Obama campaign soared.
Remember, the Obama campaign states that they returned hundreds of thousand of dollars of foreign campaign contributions. When asked to provide the details of these pre-paid credit card transactions, the Obama campaign refused and then stated that they did not have a record of them leading many to believe that some of these undetected donations may have come from foreign or questionable sources. A sample donation that they did not return was found from a donor named “Doodad”, occupation “DFGFDG”, employer “FDGFDGF, who donated $10,780.00.
The questions have since been dropped and the whole issue seemed to vanish.
The hypocrisy here has not gone unnoticed. In the past months, we have seen some of the sleaziest of games being played against the American people. Considering how health care got passed, the overt favoritism of this admin for the labor unions, the special back room deals made for all of the special interests, this administration has a lot of nerve criticizing anyone for their special interest politics.
When this president warns us that he will craft a special bill that will be a “forceful response’ to the Supreme Court decision; it sounds like a threat. All Americans should voice their concern when the president of the United States threatens the Supreme Court, especially when the court is protecting one of our most vital rights guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. Stating it better than I, the Supreme Court says, “Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime.”
So what does our puzzle tell us? It tells us that this maneuvering by the left
is an attack on Free Speech, not just of individuals, but of corporations to
join together to inform others about issues and candidates. The days and weeks leading up to an election
are crucial. Elections are where we
decide who gets to represent us, the people.
The freedom to share information and speak freely about the candidates
and issues are vital to this process and far too important for us to neglect or
ignore. We cannot let the voices of anyone be drowned out by bullies, no matter which party they belong to.
Warning from the Baltimore Sun regarding the following mudslinging ad –
‘And this administration, with this attitude toward unsubstantiated charges and standards of proof, wants to control the press and determine whether a news organization should or should not be considered legitimate.’