The Liberal Definition of People

Liberals were outraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. First they said money is not free speech. However, this argument was combated by showing past Supreme Court rulings siding with freedom of expression as being part of freedom of speech (such as it is lawful to burn the American flag). And people use money to express their feelings daily.

Now liberals say that corporations are not people and therefore, are not entitled to first amendment protections! This is another stupid and whimsical ploy being proposed by no other than that liberal genius Al Franken. Let’s say the Supreme Court agrees and says corporations are not people and they can no longer give unlimited funds to campaigns (this hopefully would never happen). This opens a whole new set of questions. Is the government a group of people who are protected under the first amendment (under this law we could also conclude the government is not people)? Would corporations be allowed to give unlimited contributions to charities? Does the government eliminate unlimited campaign contributions given by other groups of people: religions, organizations (unions, NRA), families, and so forth? Does the definition of people only apply to large corporations and not small businesses who file individual income tax returns? If a group of people, who form a corporation, are no longer people than aren’t we saying other groups of people such as families, unions, and Mormons are also not people? Would it no longer be acceptable to bring criminal charges against Bernie Madoff or Enron’s Ken Lay, but instead have to prosecute everyone at these companies even if they knew nothing of their crimes (secretaries and janitors included)? Are groups of minorities and women people? Are socio-economic status groups (wealthy, impoverished, middle class) people?

This belief by Franken and liberals alike is just another way for them to change the definition of a word so it fits their ideology’s core beliefs. Liberals hate corporations mainly because many support conservative candidates. But if you look carefully, Franken’s exceptions only include corporations and not special interest groups such as unions who usually back liberal candidates. I see no way where the government is following equal protection laws by admitting one group of people are not people, but then proclaim that another group of people are in fact people. This is another attempt by the Left to create class warfare and to divide and polarize Americans.

This definition of people also reeks of hypocrisy since liberals have done nothing to turn away corporate campaign contributions. In 2012, Obama and Democrats received more campaign contributions than conservatives from those evil companies such as Wall Street and Big Oil firms. Obama has collected record campaign contributions - nearly 2 billion dollars in 4 years. Obama’s 2013 inauguration was funded solely by millions of dollars contributed by companies. Progressive candidates argue if they turned away corporate contributions than they would have little chance of winning elections. By this same argument we can say Lance Armstrong was right to cheat and take performance enhancing drugs because his competition was also cheating. Here are some other hypocritical observations about the liberal definition of people: Why is it fair for the government to decide how much they can tax a company, but at the same time companies are not allowed to decide how to spend their profits? Would the government still be allowed to allocate unlimited funding to companies such as Solyndra or special interest groups such as Planned Parenthood? In other words, why is the government allowed to give unlimited funds to non-people institutions, but non-people institutions do not have the same freedoms?

This liberal argument is silly and moot because a corporation can bypass this dumb idea. Corporate profits to be used for campaign finance can be allocated to individuals within the company who can give these contributions to campaigns. Even if campaign contributions were capped, the company could then distribute campaign contribution funds to more individuals within the company who can contribute to the monies campaigns. Besides, it makes no sense to pass laws that are not applied equally to all.