This is just embarrassing…

“Most people haven’t read the Supreme Court’s decision and the referendum question is rather biased.  Pro-referendum activists seem to be forgetting that corporations are invested in, and run by people.  Anyone embracing liberty – both classical and modern liberals – should embrace this SCOTUS decision because without the protection of this precedent, citizen-run organizations will be subject to government decree when they try to speak out on political issues.

“How would our political landscape look if organizations that many people support could no longer speak freely?  Planned Parenthood, The Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the ACLU – all corporations – are just a few that would loose their right to free speech.  Let’s not forget that federal law considers unions to be corporations for the purposes of campaign finance laws.  Do we really want to limit employees’ rights to collectively support one political candidate over another?  Overturning ‘Citizens United’ could do just that!

Putting aside the fact that Sup. Alexander apparently couldn’t be bothered to proofread her press release – it’s “lose,” not “loose” – I’m in awe of the fact that Sup. Alexander apparently thinks she’s an expert on constitutional law, despite no actual training or education in that area.

2 Responses to Sup. Deanna Alexander (who isn’t an attorney or judge) interprets Citizens United decision

  1. Cat Kin says:

    We’ll see a lot more of this as more bills and referendums against unlimited international influence on US elections become a real challenge to the world of commerce and population control.

  2. Ron Lelgro says:

    Alexander is wrong on another count when she says, “Let’s not forget that federal law considers unions to be corporations for the purposes of campaign finance laws.” BZZZZZT! WRONG. While unions were included in the Citizens United decision, it’d be just as erroneous for her to have said that the ruling “considers corporations to be unions” for campaign finance purposes. Corporations and unions merely are each in the category of institutions covered under the ruling.

    Bad as it was, the Supreme Court’s ruling certainly did not treat unions “as” corporations. It said money is speech and therefore political speech cannot be restricted, even though unions continue to be restricted in their campaign finance activities in all sorts of ways that do not afflict corporations. If the ruling truly treated unions as corporations, unions actually would be far better off but that would mean getting rid of interferences like Wisconsin Act 10 and federal labor law restrictions on dues and contributions.

    In this and other ways, people like Alexander constantly seek to marginalize and minimize unions and other public interest groups whosoe views they don’t like. We union backers should be so lucky as to find a conservative court or legislature that would ever decide to give labor unions as much sway as they give corporations in every sphere of activity.

    What a tin ear, and how ridiculous. Let’s see Alexander ask Milwaukee County’s represented employees if they would agree that corporations and unions are or ever have been basically identical or even ever treated that way when it comes to their respective political campaign activity. It’s all BS.

Leave a Reply to Cat Kin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.