Olbermann: “U.S. Government for Sale?”
I know I’m missing the point, here. Keith Olbermann’s column today compares SCOTUS’s ruling on campaign finance reform to the Dred Scott decision in 1857.
Okay, fine. Corporations – that is, groups of people who voluntarily join a larger group – spending money on campaigns is just as bad – no, worse – than slavery.
Gotcha. You idiot.
But no, let’s talk about something else. Somewhere amid his hysterical ranting, Olbermann writes:
They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.
It’s the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Right? The rich will have all they want, Olbermann goes on to say, while the rest of us have nothing!
Olbermann is, compared to the rest of us, rich. But never mind that. The Rich are in charge now! And which party is the “party of the rich?”
Yeah, I know, there are plenty of wealthy Democrats and liberal activists willing to spend millions upon millions of dollars in support of easy litigation laws and feel-good social experiments and wealth (but not too much wealth) redistribution.
Still, you know what I mean. The Republican Party is viewed as the “party of the rich.”
So if SCOTUS’s ruling on campaign finance reform, a.k.a. government regulation of political speech, means government is for sale, then we will absolutely see the Republican Party rise to dominance over the next several election cycles. The Democratic Party will sink to lows not seen since the Whigs went into extinction in the mid-19th century.
What’s that, you ask? If that’s going to happen as a result of SCOTUS’ ruling, then why didn’t it happen before campaign finance limits and McCain-Feingold?
Shut the hell up, you. Don’t clutter up the conversation with your inane attempts at logic.