The Censorship Known as Campaign Finance Reform


“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” -- SCOTUS

We’ve had two major rounds of  “campaign finance reform” violating the first amendment in the past forty years. Each one has turned out to INCREASE the very bribery and corruption they were supposed to end, becoming the very means of filtering money to candidates or officials, and promoting causes out of proportion with their real support.

This is because:

  • The Law of Unintended Consequences. Imposing simplistic “order”, by force, on a complex system always produces unexpected results, usually the opposite of what you intended.
  • Each one increased the power of government, making bribery of government that much more profitable
  • As long as government has power that is profitable, the private sector will pay WHATEVER it takes to obtain it. If the “reforms” made bribery more difficult, then it simply raised the cost, which made accepting bribes more profitable to the GOVERNMENT, increasing the incentive for officials to be corrupt.
  • By “organizing” the thing in question, through imposing a government bureaucracy on it, the “reforms” just create an orderly, static way of bribing government officials and calling it “legal”.

Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results is the definition of…stupidity.

It is stupid to expect future, censorship-oriented “Campaign finance reform” to do anything but increase corruption and abuse, the way all previous ones did…even if it targets the speech of people who are associated with corporations.

You’re Censoring People, not Corporations


The moment a corporation stands up, like Frankenstein’s Monster, and starts talking without human intervention, I’ll agree that they might be censored.

But the fact is that a “corporation” is comprised of individuals, and THEY have their freedom of speech protected…even while they work for or own that corporation.

Censorship advocates, like judicial nominee Elena Kagan, and Liberal Republican John McCain, want to silence people, on the flimsy premise that they happen to be members of a corporation. They are violating the first amendment, because individuals are writing the copy that is being banned from publication.

You might as well censor them for belonging to a political party. We could just say “the constitution protects individuals, not parties”.

For that matter, publishing houses, newspapers, and blog hosting sites are corporations…everything they publish could be censored the same way.

You could censor the corporation if it tried to talk like some monstrous creation, but not the employees and management of the company who are actually buying political ads or other speech.

Corporations are Socialism



It's amazing how many things government intervention causes, and then blames on economic freedom

When people discover Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism’s Failures, or its Facebook Group, some are astonished at the list of problems government intervention has caused, them blamed on freedom of choice.

What often surprises them the most is that it includes the modern corporation.

We’re taught, in socialized education anyway, that corporations are an icon of everything wrong with capitalism.

The problem is that everything that makes a modern corporation has been imposed on us by government laws and force…and that’s socialism.

In fact, you can’t anything like the modern “public corporation”, in a free market.

Why could British Petroleum take risks that no privately owned company would dare? Because it’s effectively nationalized, as a Public Corporation. No owners or managers will be held accountable for the oil spill, not even under Obama’s abrogation of Rule of Law. Likewise any managers or owners in a company selling products it secretly knows are harmful, or fraudulent.

This is why you hear ads on the radio, by The Company Corporation, saying that you should incorporate your business, or to avoid liability for any harm you cause.

In a free market, there would be no way to simply renounce your liability for actions you take, or a company you own.

This can only be done by government fiat.

The very reason that Liberal Democrats pushed for the creation of corporate law, in the US, was to nationalize industries that they could not openly take over.

Since they couldn’t get people to accept an unaccountable People’s Automaking Bureau like you could in China, they simply ensured that existing automakers would become unaccountable bureaucracies owned by People.

In order to get the special treatment of a public corporation, a company must become OWNED by “the public”:

It is not allowed to simply write a custom document of ownership and sell stock to the public, to raise millions in capital. Instead, the company must follow a massive set of regulations, becoming in effect a mini-government.  In return for selling out their property rights, its owners and management become exempt from the consequences and liability for their actions, just like government bureaucrats.

Companies that do this, of course, have an unfair edge over companies that do not…so they come to dominate an industry, for example automaking.

And thus, the automaking industry comes to be owned by The People, through a quasi-governmental agency.

Impure, adulterated socialism, called Market Socialism…but socialism nonetheless.

CEO Salaries: More Bailout Failure


I am opposed to socialism. It always does more harm than good. But I will not defend the executives of the companies that stole three hundred billion dollars from the US taxpayer. They opened the door to the nationalization of their companies, and the socialist Obama administration is simply following up on the precedent, just as they are following up on Bush’s socialist precedents.

Yes, the CEO compensation plan WILL cripple those companies, making them less likely to survive. But that’s what they get, for their robber baron status. The problem is the original socialist violation of the marketplace, not the cascade-effect it sets off.

We need to ban any more unconstitutional bailouts, not waste our breath objecting to its inevitable destruction of the companies who already bribed our government to get it.

%d bloggers like this: