THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 4/21/2015
Going “postal” over political $
The revolting, even remarkable, story of the postal, or USPS, worker who flew a “gyro-copter” onto the White House lawn justifiably drew substantial coverage in the mainstream news (MSN). It’s a revolting breech that, for crass political purposes, potentially put “the people’s house” in danger of damage, disrupted and inconvenienced security personnel (who therefore were unavailable to respond to threats elsewhere), and caused consternation and fear among tourists. There was a remarkable aspect to the whole episode considering the advance notice given by the pilot and the shear gall of his violation of restricted airspace.
Since the postal worker wanted to send a message of protest over the “Citizens United v. FEC” Supreme Court decision that greatly expanded the financial resources used in political campaigns, we can use this criminal act of an ideological fanatic to make some observations. First, the news coverage downplayed the issue of campaign financing as his motivation. One only has to substitute membership in a conservative group like the Tea Party or Americans for Prosperity, and change the issue to illegal immigration, for instance, to envision the firestorm of indignation that would have consumed the self-reverential talking heads of MSN.
The usual political suspects on the Democrat left would have decried the incivility, extremism and inhumanity of conservatives. They would have insisted that Republicans state their disapproval of not only the incident but also the issue behind the criminal breach of White House space. It would have been used to the maximum, crass, political detriment of Republicans in general; superficial coverage would have shed heat, not light, on the underlying issue of illegal immigration; the narrative favored by the liberal political/media elite would have prevailed in support of Obama’s executive amnesty edicts.
Instead, we have a left-wing, union, anti-free speech partisan engaged in a dangerous stunt in service to his (and the progressive Democrat party’s) obsession with eliminating funding for their political enemies. That is at the core of obsessive leftist animus for the Citizens United decision that declared money spent by any entity—corporations, unions, political action committees or individual citizens—to be an expression of Constitutionally protected speech.
It should be a noncontroversial stand for anyone who thinks about the reality of political campaigns being an expression of the most basic of freedoms: choosing the candidates that will represent us in the executive or legislative chambers of the land. Pamphleteering and other modes of stirring up anti-British, pro-independence sentiment in the American Colonies depended on someone’s, or some group’s, financial resources to write, print and distribute said materials.
When Democrats think they own an issue and have no fear of political retribution, they sometimes drop their veneer of reasonableness and civility to advance utterly offensive legislative ideas. They recently—before voters had the good sense to put Republicans in charge of the Senate—proposed the Udall (Constitutional) Amendment putting the federal government in charge of regulating, controlling, restricting or eliminating money spent in political campaigns.
More money is spent on pet food than on political races; however, to those who have the overwhelming advantage of incumbency and governmental machinery to boost their reelection efforts, money spent trying to unseat them is, by definition, uniquely corrupting to our representative democracy. The “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling has so enervated the anti-free speech, fanatical left that Obama, in a State of the Union speech, lied about the decision so blatantly—lied to the faces of the Supreme Court justices seated in front of him—that Justice Alito was seen mouthing the words “Not true” in a silent rebuke to the President.
Reliable media water-carriers were quick to jump on and castigate Alito for violating the event’s decorum. They gave scant, if any, attention to the far greater offense of Obama’s bald-faced fabrication told to the seated Justices, Senators, Congressional representatives, dignitaries and American viewers. Perhaps the flying postal union guy was a nut; perhaps he was just following the leftist “ends justifies the means” method of advocacy. One man’s nut is sometimes another’s advocate.
A larger point involves the monumental hypocrisy of those on the left whining about conservative/business/corporate money going to Republicans while such money is dwarfed by the massive amounts that come from unions, wealthy entertainers and progressive fat cats like George Soros. The Liberals’ Koch (brothers) obsession blinds them to the massive left wing money machine (i.e. Democracy Alliance, etc). Hillary ‘s campaign plans to spend up to $2.5 billion; barely a chirp emits from those who rail against conservative PAC money.
Interestingly, the Citizens United case came about because a nonprofit corporation, named Citizens United, wanted to broadcast the anti-Clinton “Hillary: The Movie” within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Court struck down the McCain-Feingold restrictions that prohibited such political spending by corporations, even nonprofits. We now behold Hillary Clinton embarking on a campaign rife with phoniness (i.e. fake twitter and facebook followers) and staged conversations with “regular” people, most of whom are Democrat operatives or contributors. We can be thankful that those opposing her will not have the heavy regulatory hand of monetary restrictions keeping citizens, “United” or not, from having individual or collective say about her machinations.