Gene Lyon’s is in a snit over the Supreme Court ruling that expands freedom of speech to corporations. He wrote in his Arkansas Democrat-Gazette screed of 01-28-2010, “I’ve long used the phrase satirically to describe the malign influence of tycoon-funded Washington propaganda shops like Citizens United upon our democracy. In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court ruling awarding corporations precisely the same First Amendment rights as individual U.S. citizens, it’s not so funny anymore.” Anytime anyone counters the left’s propaganda bilge, it isn’t funny; that is the message he tried to hide.

Notice he used the word democracy to define our government. Gene, we have republic; a constitutional; representative republic. A man as smart as you pretend to be should know that. Oh, I see, a slip of the keyboard is it.  Right!

Actually, the problem with Lyon’s, as with all liberals of his stripe, freedom for anyone who dares marshal forces to speak out against the left’s presumed control of all things is wrong. He claims that the Constitution shouldn’t treat corporations the same as individuals. I am surprised he didn’t say that corporations aren’t mentioned in the document. Neither is many other things mentioned. Gene: Lesson: the Constitution is about controlling government, not people or things. And that is a big problem with liberals such as Lyons.

The ruling ended second-class treatment for individuals who are in groups, enabling them to express their views collectively. In general, a corporation isn’t formed to express political views as a primary function, however individuals control and run corporations and the ruling opens up the right for those individuals to speak for the corporation (those in the entity) as a collective voice to state the company interests. What Lyon’s doesn’t say in all of his demagoguery is that much bad legislation has come as a result of spokesmen for corporations not being able to speak against liberal rules that hamper business.

It would be good if Lyons actually knew the facts instead of writing about what he thinks he knows and doesn’t. In the case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward of 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote (Cited in part due to the length of the quote, “A corporation … if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered the same, and may act as a single individual.” Now read Lyons’s ignorance again above in italics. Corporations can act as individuals, Gene.

As usual, Lyon’s only stated his side of the issue and used straw men to do it. He set up scenarios and then shot them down as if he had the final word on the matter and as if his argument was rock solid. He wrote, “More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.” Either Lyon’s is ignorant or he deliberately wrote falsely to obscure the facts. Corporations controlled by and owned by foreign interests are forbidden by law to contribute to our elections. The decision didn’t change that law.

Lyons filled his screed with histrionics that are actually quite laughable. Here is an example: “Suffice it to say that we’re headed toward the day when politicians may appear on TV wearing one-piece jumpsuits festooned with corporate logos like NASCAR drivers or pro bass fishermen.”  That would be an easy way to spot the phonies and a genuine man of the people. NASCAR and fishermen are very astute at spotting people like Lyons.

He called the five who voted for the ruling “radical-right judicial activists” who overruled the FEC. (Note the Ad Hominem attack, a staple of Lyons’s writing.) Activist is the word liberals use when the court rules against liberal causes. What Lyon’s doesn’t tell is that the government claimed a book could be banned if it asked the readers to vote for a candidate for an elective office. The government lawyer answered yes when asked if the FEC could ban the book; the answer yes brought the ruling that not only upholds the First Amendment, it eviscerated a major portion of McCain-Feingold and limited the power of the FEC in the process.

One fact stands out with Lyons standing with the nut job in the White House on the ruling. Just as birds flock together, liberals speak stupidity at every opportunity. And speech against constitutionally protected freedom of speech is stupid in any book.  Do you get it Lyons?

You may wonder about the word dribble in the title rather than drivel. Lyons dribbled drivel and nonsense throughout his article. That’s the only way to describe it accurately.

© 01-28-2010 DEC

The citation for the quote of Justice Marshall can be found in the article on the American Thinker web site. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/a_dangerous_dissent_on_citizen.html