Wow! Sounds … dire. \u00a0Let’s have a chat, then, with Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior senator from Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader for the GOP.<\/p>\n
* \u00a0 \u00a0 * \u00a0 \u00a0 *<\/p>\n Dear Mitch (can I call you Mitch?):<\/p>\n Sounds like you’re worried about something. Some great, existential threat to our nation. Some vast, horrifying conspiracy that threatens the very foundations of our way of life, our liberties, our deep-seated national beliefs.<\/p>\n What could it be?<\/p>\n Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell charged in an exclusive interview with Newsmax Thursday that President Obama poses the greatest threat to the First Amendment in \u201cmodern times\u201d …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yikes! \u00a0Whatever could you mean? \u00a0Are you privy to some secret administration plan? \u00a0Are you concerned about the growing national security state, warrantless wiretaps, NSA scanning email, or drones watching our every move? \u00a0Tell us more!<\/p>\n … and branded his administration \u201castonishingly left wing.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mitch, the only astonishing thing is that someone could consider Obama’s centrist-to-a-fault stance on most issues “left wing.” \u00a0The real<\/em>\u00a0“left wing” sure isn’t very happy with him.<\/p>\n McConnell also accused President Obama\u2019s re-election campaign of engaging in tactics eerily \u201creminiscent\u201d of the Nixon administration\u2019s so-called \u201cenemies list\u201d during the 1970s.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wow. That’s two associations between Obama and Nixon in as many days. \u00a0You with this, and Rush Limbaugh calling Obama’s new immigration policy “worse than anything Nixon did in Watergate.” \u00a0Is that the new GOP campaign meme: \u00a0Obama = Nixon? \u00a0That’s … very odd, Mitch.<\/p>\n Really, Mitch? \u00a0Flabbergasted?<\/p>\n … by remarks made by David Axelrod, the president\u2019s senior campaign adviser, who told an audience in New York on Wednesday that Obama would \u201cuse whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment\u201d to turn back the Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for super PACs to play a prominent role in elections.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gosh, I’m not quite sure what’s “flabbergasting” about that, Mitch. I mean, people have been talking about ways to reverse Citizens United<\/em> since the ruling came down, up to and including any number of Quixotic constitutional amendment proposals to state that corporations aren’t people (no matter what, my friend, Mitt Romney says).<\/p>\n Certainly it isn’t that a president is talking about a constitutional amendment to deal with a SCOTUS ruling he doesn’t care for that has you so “flabbergasted,” Mitch. \u00a0I mean, how many GOP presidents have given lip service to a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade?<\/em> \u00a0Or to outlaw flag burning? \u00a0Or any number of other outrageous things the Supreme Court has ruled over the years?<\/p>\n What in particular about this flabbergasts you, Mitch?<\/p>\n \u201cThis has never been done before \u2014 in 235 years \u2014 to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country \u2014 a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,\u201d said the top Republican in the Senate, who participated in a legal challenge that helped make super PACs possible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We’ll leave aside the Alien & Sedition Acts, Mitch. \u00a0Oh, and other actions in which the government \u00a0has restricted political speech (from imprisoning labor and war protesters, especially during time of war, to preventing protesters from getting near official events). \u00a0We’ll leave those aside, because I think we’re getting at the heart of your flabbergastment — the idea that opposing the Citizens United<\/em> ruling means you want to have the government “control political speech in this country.”<\/p>\n \u201cAmerica was built on free speech \u2014 the most important part of the Bill of Rights \u2014 …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n More important than Freedom of Religion, Mitch? \u00a0More important than the Right to Bear Arms? \u00a0More important than the Tenth Amendment? \u00a0Careful — I suspect some of your followers would disagree.<\/p>\n … and so we need to defend speech we don\u2019t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up,\u201d McConnell insisted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wait … what? \u00a0Who’s being “shut up” because we “don’t like” certain speech?<\/p>\n \u201cAmerica has many problems, but too much speech is not one of them \u2014 too vigorous speech is not one of them. And we don\u2019t need the government \u2014 which is trying to control almost every aspect of our lives now \u2014 also telling us what we can and cannot say.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What does a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United<\/em> and allow restrictions on now-unlimited campaign spending have to do with “telling us what we can and cannot say?” \u00a0Is “too vigorous speech” a code for “too expensive speech”?<\/p>\n The longest serving U.S. senator in Kentucky\u2019s history has been dubbed the \u201cDarth Vader of campaign finance reform\u201d for his sometimes unpopular stand on campaign finance.\u00a0It\u2019s an image that he relishes …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, of course, Mitch. \u00a0Darth Vader is just the image you want to associate with the Senate GOP leadership. Well played!<\/p>\n Especially since Darth was such a big believer in free speech — except when someone’s lack of faith disturbed him. But, heck, you can’t trust folks who lack faith!<\/p>\n … based on a belief that all voices need to be heard in the political arena.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I was not aware that before Citizens United there were voices that were not being heard in the political arena. \u00a0There were voices not being heard as loudly as they could turn up the volume to corporately speak, but that’s a very, very different thing. Isn’t it, Mitch?<\/p>\n McConnell is expected to reiterate his stand in a planned speech on Friday at the American Enterprise Institute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course. Because the AEI is all about the “little guy” having a powerful voice \u00a0heard in the political arena.<\/p>\n He accused the Obama administration of using government agencies like the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to \u201cembarrass\u201d and \u201csilence\u201d its critics.<\/p>\n \u201cIn other words, they\u2019re using the power of the government to try to shut people up. It\u2019s reminiscent of the Nixon administration,\u201d said McConnell,…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Wow. Those are pretty harsh accusations, Mitch. \u00a0Any specifics you care to associate with them? \u00a0Anything you can actually point to the FEC, the FCC, the SEC, and\/or the IRS doing to “embarass” and “silence” \u00a0its critics? \u00a0Sure you don’t want to throw in the National Weather Service, the Marine Corps Band, and Smokey the Bear while you’re at it?<\/p>\n … who couldn\u2019t recall any other administration that had floated the idea of a constitutional amendment as in the case of Axelrod.<\/p>\n \u201cCertainly in modern times,\u201d he asserted. \u201cI can\u2019t recall anybody before just coming right out and saying we need to amend the First Amendment. Now they may have wanted to get around it in some way, but these people are just saying forthrightly \u2018we\u2019re going to change the Constitution.\u2019 The most important amendment to the Constitution is the First Amendment. And free speech is right at the beginning.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In modern times I can’t recall any court coming out and saying that corporations were so worthy and person-like as to enjoy full and unfettered free speech protection, up to and including spending however many gazillions they choose to spend on elections.<\/p>\n What next? \u00a0Will corporations be allowed to practice their own religion? \u00a0Will they be able to keep and bear arms? \u00a0When do corporations get to vote, and how many votes will they get (to cast, as opposed to buy)?<\/p>\n I am a profoundly deep believer in the First Amendment of the Constitution. \u00a0I would be very leery of anything that directly affected its words. \u00a0But I’m a believer in voting rights, too, and I don’t think that the amendments that “changed” those rights — giving women the franchise, for example — were some sort horrible weakening or perversion of the Constitution.<\/p>\n Despite widespread criticism of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2010 Citizens United<\/em> decision \u2014 based largely on a presumption that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities or labor unions to speak collectively \u2014<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I don’t recall anyone ever saying that the CEO of ExxonMobil was not allowed to speak his mind under the First Amendment. \u00a0I don’t recall any evil governmental conspiracy to gag the board members of J. P. Morgan. \u00a0They all were allowed to speak, to op-ed … and to vote their conscience.<\/p>\n That doesn’t mean that ExxonMobil or J. P. Morgan (or the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO) should have the same right to “speak” (spend money) that their constituent individuals have, any more than they are allowed to (actually) vote.<\/p>\n … McConnell insisted that he is \u201cabsolutely\u201d pleased with the role that super PACs are playing in the 2012 presidential contest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Given that the biggest corporate and billionaire-funded SuperPACs support the GOP, that’s hardly surprising.<\/p>\n Which points of view were not being expressed in the marketplace of ideas before Citizens United<\/em>, Mitch?<\/p>\n And when a gaggle of corporations are able to buy up all the aisles in the market, how free is the marketplace then?<\/p>\n … who was first elected to the Senate in 1984.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That seems vaguely fitting, as considering a corporate voice to be the same as an individual one, and defending that in the name of liberty, is more than vaguely Orwellian.<\/p>\n \u201cThe left for many years has tried to sort of micromanage speech \u2014 say that \u2018you get to speak because you\u2019re on my side. But you don\u2019t get to speak because you\u2019re against what I\u2019m doing.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Really? \u00a0Really, Mitch? \u00a0Point out to me where the “left” tried to restrict people who were not on “their side” from being able to speak. Really, Mitch — I want to know.<\/p>\n (Need I point out that one of the architects of the campaign spending limitations that Citizens United overturned, Mitch, was one of your colleagues, Sen. John McCain — someone whom even you, Mitch, would have problems describing as “the left.”)<\/p>\n The senator said he is \u201cproud of the decision in Citizens United\u201d and added that \u201cI hope I played a role by filing an Amicus brief in that case.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The only thing more appalling than the decision, Mitch, is the idea that any of the Justices were actually swayed by your arguments.<\/p>\n A senior member of the Appropriations, Agriculture and Rules Committees of the upper chamber, McConnell also hoped that Senate Democrats would not succeed in passing a so-called Disclose Act, which would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to disclose their top donors if they participate in political activity, and to agree to other disclosures related to expenditures prior to elections.<\/p>\n He said such a law would be another way of undermining the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat the left is saying \u2014 okay the Supreme Court won\u2019t allow us to prevent them from speaking, but why don\u2019t we try to make sure everybody knows who\u2019s contributing to those groups \u2014 and then we\u2019ll harass them, and intimidate them, and try to quiet them, shut them up, sort of like a Nixonian enemies\u2019 list. And some of it has already happened.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See, funny thing, Mitch — when the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United were explaining their reasoning, they dismissed concerns that the gargantuan flood of corporate money into the election process would lead to corruption and damage to our democratic institutions. \u00a0Why? \u00a0Because Congress would be able to mandate transparency in donations, so that if ExxonMobil spend a million dollars getting someone elected, for example, at least people would know it and be able to act (and vote) as they then saw fit.<\/p>\n Clearly the Supreme Court was cleverly conspiring to undermine its own decision, eh, Mitch?<\/p>\n McConnell accused President Obama of helping to \u201cgo after an individual who contributed to one of the groups supporting Gov. Romney.\u201d<\/p>\n Similar efforts are being waged through various government agencies, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cSo their idea here is \u2018well if we can\u2019t shut them up, then let\u2019s embarrass them off the playing field. Let\u2019s intimidate them. Let\u2019s scare them. Let\u2019s bring the force of government down on them and intimidate them so that they\u2019re afraid to take us on.\u2019 This is not appropriate behavior in America. And this needs to be stood up to.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Really, Mitch? \u00a0Because if there is official government harassment of opponents to the administration, I’d like to hear about it and have the opportunity to condemn it. \u00a0Of course, it’s hard to believe the only way Goldman-Sachs can avoid being intimidated by the government is by secret donations, isn’t it, Mitch?<\/p>\n I’m going to leave off the rest of your screedy interview with NewsMax, Mitch, because while it’s equally doltish (even though job growth has been pretty steadily increasing in the private sector, you think the private sector is losing jobs; even though public sector jobs have\u00a0plummeted\u00a0because of local and state governments starving for funds, you think public sector employment is doing fine), it misses the point.<\/p>\n Proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0and corporate personhood may or may not be a good idea<\/a>, but it’s not an attack on your right, Mitch, or mine, to speak our minds in public.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/mitch-mcconnell-official-portrait-236x300.jpg\" "\\"Mitch")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/flabbergasted-300x192.jpg\" "\\"Flabbergasted\\"")
<\/a>McConnell was flabbergasted …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/mcconnell-pinch-300x208.jpg\" "\\"Mitch")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/jpmorganchase-213x300.jpg\" "\\"JP")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/corporate-speech-300x235.jpg\" "\\"Corporate")
<\/a>\u201cI think it is really, really important now that it\u2019s possible for all points of view in the marketplace of ideas to be expressed,\u201d said McConnell, …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/money-talks-300x238.jpg\" "\\"Money")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/06\/citizensunited-stevensdissent-300x229.png\" "\\"Citizens")
<\/a>Opposing Citizens United<\/em> is not opposing personal liberty and free speech. It’s opposing the idea that those who can afford the biggest microphones — especially major corporations showing record profits — are either deserving of the same free speech rights as actual flesh-and-blood citizens, or should be allowed to leverage their vast wealth in an “equal” way with the average citizen-on-the-street.<\/p>\n