President Obama’s State of the Union address proved once again
that the Community-Organizer-In-Chief hates corporations almost
as much as the late historian Howard Zinn did.
Zinn, a Marxist whose revisionist A People’s History of
the United States has been forced on a generation of
helpless college students, died Wednesday at 87.
Zinn considered Obama to be a moderate and
described corporations as “monsters trying to devour as much
profit as possible at anyone’s expense.”
This attitude permeates academia, the media, the
Democrat-controlled Congress, and the Obama administration, all
of which view corporations as threats to the continuing existence
of the Republic.
Leftists hate corporations because they despise the profit
motive, and perhaps more importantly, because view corporations
as part of the political right. Of course the notion that
corporations are inclined to the political right is a myth that
has remarkable staying power. This false idea has persisted
because it serves the interests of the left.
Contrary to popular belief, corporations are by their
nature timid when dealing with pressure groups. When pressed,
virtually all major corporations bow to the agenda of the left.
Try to think of the last time you heard of a corporation standing
up to thuggish shakedown artists like ACORN and Al Sharpton. Many
CEOs of mega-corporations, such as GE’s Jeffrey Immelt and
Wal-Mart’s Mike Duke, ardently endorse leftist goals. Banks like
Goldman Sachs support government-expanding carbon emission
controls and big insurance companies support ObamaCare.
A 2006
study by my employer, Capital Research Center, examined the
tax returns of charitable foundations of Fortune 100 companies
and found they overwhelmingly favor groups that advocate for
bigger government and tougher regulations. In fact, every year we
used to publish a report called Patterns of Corporate
Philanthropy, and every year the data provided by the
corporations showed the same thing.
In the preface to the 1996 edition, economist Milton
Friedman criticized corporations that financially support those
who seek their downfall. “I see little reason to expect the
business community to change its current suicidal behavior with
respect to philanthropy,” the late Nobel laureate wrote.
Anti-corporate sentiment has reached a fever pitch in
recent days as President Obama and the rest of the left rage
against the Supreme Court’s Jan. 21 decision in Citizens
United v. FEC that struck down the McCain-Feingold law’s
prohibition on corporate political spending, finding it a
particularly odious variety of censorship.
Liberal anger is misplaced. Anyone who has studied the
Constitution knows that the decision simply reaffirmed the
court’s longstanding position that speech –especially political
speech— merits protection.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, “Because
speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to
hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must
prevail against laws that would suppress it by design
or inadvertence.”
But common sense is in short supply in progressive
circles and leftists’ paroxysms of rage have helped to remind
Americans how much the left has always hated economic freedom and
corporations –especially American corporations.
At the State of the Union address on Wednesday President
Obama acted like some chest-beating Latin American
caudillo when he took the highly unusual step of
chastising Supreme Court justices seated in front of him.
Interrupted by loudly cheering Democrats, America’s first
Marxist president attempted to intimidate the high court that
dared to defy him.
“With all due deference to separation of powers last week
the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will
open the floodgates for special interests including foreign
corporations to spend without limit in our elections,” said
Obama. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by
America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.
They should be decided by the American people and I’d urge
Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some
of these problems.”
In fact Obama, who frequently and fondly recounts his time
as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago,
lied about the impact of the decision and even
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times called him on
it.
Law professor Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the
Federal Election Commission, who, like Obama, graduated from
Harvard Law School, charitably
described the president’s statement as “blithering ignorance
of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.”
Despite the ruling in Citizens United, foreign
nationals including foreign corporations continue to be
prohibited from making “a contribution or donation of money or
other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to
make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal,
State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which Smith
noted was not at issue in the case.
The same law also prevents foreign corporations from making
any contribution or donation to any committee of any political
party and from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure,
or disbursement for an electioneering communication,” Smith
wrote.
Because the right is dramatically outgunned in the world of
campaign finance, the left would prefer that billionaire leftists
like George Soros, Peter B. Lewis, and the subprime mortgage
hucksters Herb and Marion Sandler, who have already made their
money in the corporate world, be allowed to use their mountains
of cash to control the political debate.
Unsurprisingly, the liberal
Secretary of State Project, which Soros helped to create to
allow Democrats to steal (even more) elections, decried the
Citizens United decision in a mass email to supporters
as the “worst decision since Bush v. Gore.”
The shadowy group has endorsed Rep. Alan Grayson’s (D-Fla.)
six-bill
“Save Our Democracy” platform. You might know Grayson as the
colorful congressman who wanted political adversary
Angie Langley jailed for criticizing him.
The six-bill platform would slap a 500% excise tax on
corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate
expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. It would also
prevent companies making political contributions and expenditures
from trading their stock on national exchanges.
MoveOn, another Soros investment property, told its
followers the ruling was “the most scandalous decision since
Bush v. Gore.” The group promised to “tackle the single
biggest and best solution to the corporate corruption problem” by
pushing a “constitutional amendment to undo the damage of the
horrible Supreme Court decision.”
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president
Andrew Stern, President Obama’s closest ally in the labor
movement, said the
decision, which also allows labor unions to spend freely on
elections, will lead to the “unlimited corporatization of our
economy.”
“Now we have the right to spend unlimited money apparently
in ways we want; unfortunately we don’t have unlimited money,”
Stern said.
At least Stern was honest about his motives.
