Illinois Democrats: "Raise Taxes or the Sky Will Fall"

My father had a rule born of the Great Depression: "Pay cash; don't buy on time; and don't pay interest."

Dad didn't buy "things" (our home excepted) unless he had cash to pay for them.

Illinois' Democrat politicians have a "better idea". They buy whatever strikes their passing fancy, even though the state is flat broke. Then to pay, they raise taxes, or borrow and pay interest.

They, for example, want to build President Obama's library. Presidential libraries are ordinarily built with private funds. But their "better idea" is to pay for it with taxpayer dollars they don't have.

This "better idea," like other "better ideas," comes along at a time when Illinois can't pay its bills on time and has a multi-billion dollar pension problem.

Illinois ended 2013 with $7.6 billion in unpaid bills. (Not withstanding the fact that in January 2011 Democrats -- without the support of a single Republican lawmaker -- raised the state income tax on individuals from 3 percent to 5 percent, and the corporate income taxes from 7.3 percent to 9.5 percent.)

Couple that with the fact that "the state's four main state pension funds have an unfunded liability of roughly $100 billion.

Here's a sample of Democrat logic. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., describes taxpayer dollars he wants spent on the Obama presidential library as "seed money."

"It's going to have a long-term positive economic impact. ... This library will pay back in terms of visitors to our state, more business, more jobs and people paying taxes. ... Whether $100 million is the right dollar amount, I don't know ...."

And he's not alone. Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan, D-Chicago, and Chicago Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel have been leading the charge to spend taxpayer dollars for the library. Indeed, an Illinois House Committee led by Democrats wanted to appropriate $100 millions for it.

There is of course one flaw in the argument: once built, presidential libraries generally lose money. Therefore, once built, they are normally sloughed off to the U. S. National Archives -- which continues to operate them at a loss.

By comparison, "friends" of presidents Bush and Clinton raised over $200 million in private dollars to fund their libraries. George Washington's library at Mount Vernon operates on private donations.

In addition to this "better idea," Democrats have some others. Spend $520,0000 to fly 91 prairie chickens into Illinois at a cost of $1,166 per prairie chicken, and spend billions for "high speed rail" (e.g., buy 35 locomotives at $5 million)!

On May 31, Illinois Senate Democrats approved a $35.7 billion budget, in which expenses exceed revenues by $4.4 billion or 12.3 percent. To make it balance, Democrats want to extend the 5 percent Illinois personal income tax, and the 9.5 percent corporate income taxes -- not withstanding their promises that the tax increases would be "temporary." The alternative would be -- horror of horrors! -- to actually cut spending by $4.4 billion or by 12.3 percent.

So you can bet that in the lame-duck session -- right after the 2014 General Election -- Democrats will welsh on their 2011 promise to let the personal income tax revert from 5 percent to 3.75 percent, and the corporate income tax revert from 9.5 percent to 7.75 percent in 2015. Recall, that it was in the 2011 lame-duck session that the Democrats raised the income taxes to their present levels. (Why during the lame-duck session? Because that's when "retiring" politicians can pass anything, fully knowing they will not have to answer for their votes while they are collecting their pensions.)

We are already -- predictably -- being told that a $4.4 billion or 12.3 percent spending cut will be catastrophic! Programs will be devastated. Historic sites will be closed. State agencies will be left in limbo.

The sky will fall!

There are two methods of budgeting. Governments generally use baseline budgeting, or a variation thereof. Real people -- like you and I -- use zero based budgeting.

Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the baseline for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget plus upward adjustments for inflation and population growth.

Zero based budgeting requires that all spending must be rejustified each year or it will be eliminated from the budget -- regardless of previous spending levels!

Illinois families don't have the option of using baseline budgeting to run their homes. They can't spend 12.3 percent more then they have. If they expect a 2015 income of $31,300 per year, spending $35,700 is a recipe for bankruptcy -- unless they have savings they can dip into.

Illinois has reached the point were it can't be Santa Claus to everybody. The only rational approach is for the state to thoroughly analyze every one of its programs.Then, set aside the necessary money for the most important program. Next, do the same for the second. Then, do the same for the third, and so on.

When the $31.3 billion runs out, quit spending. No sane man believes that there isn't 12.3 percent waste, duplication and/or cronyism in Illinois' $35.7 billion budget.


Posted Online:  June 12, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Don't Trust Humans to Redistrict Illinois

               "Gerrymander, Joy of Joys, Safe house seats for all our boys!
                        "Gerrymander, we're awfully fond of you, voo, voo, de, doh!"
                                  - To tune of "Rubber Duckie," 
                                          Rock Island County ARC Gridiron Show (1991)

The present system of redistricting Illinois congressional districts and Illinois state legislative districts is cynical political humbug.

What passes for fair-minded redistricting in our state is a counterfeit, inconsistent with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In 1964, the U. S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims, held that state legislative districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case rose when voters from Jefferson County, Ala., challenged the redistricting of their state legislature. At the time, Alabama state senators were elected from senatorial districts grossly unequal in population.

One district had 14 times the population of another!

Eight justices voted to strike down the Alabama senate district scheme. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that it violated the U. S. Constitutional requirement of "one person, one vote."

He further wrote, "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Reynolds v. Sims was not a gerrymandering case. It did not involve drawing congressional districts roughly equal in population but manipulating their boundaries so as to include or exclude Republicans or Democrats, in order to give one party an a electoral advantage.The most extreme example of that would be to create a meandering district that included only persons registered in the Democratic primary, and excluding all persons registered in the the Republican primary -- that is, a district with only Democrats.

The language in the Reynolds v. Sims majority opinion, however, clearly states that "gerrymandering" can be unconstitutional.

"The right to vote can neither be denied outright ... nor destroyed by alteration of ballots ... nor diluted by ballot box stuffing. Obviously included within the right to choose, secured by the Constitution, is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted. ... Racially based gerrymandering, and the conducting of white primaries, both of which result in denying to some citizens their right to vote, have been held to be constitutionally impermissible. And history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

When districts are intentionally gerrymandered to create districts in which Democrats or Republicans almost are guaranteed victory, the members of the other party have their votes debased. But although the problem may be obvious, the solution may not be.

In the early years when I was on the bench, once a year all Illinois judges were required to attend the Illinois Judicial Conference Educational Seminar. At a luncheon during one such session, the issue of appointing judges (rather than electing them) was discussed by the speaker, an Illinois Supreme Court justice.

The justice expressed skepticism with the argument that "allowing the governor to appoint judges would keep judicial appointments from being political." Instead, he suggested a better way: "Have the appointments made by the Illinois Supreme Court." When the laughter subsided, he finished his remarks, having persuaded nobody.

Recently, the Yes for Independent Maps Coalition has been working to collect about a half a million signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would take redistricting of Illinois legislative districts (not Congressional districts) out of the hands of the legislature.

They correctly believe that Illinois history demonstrates that legislative redistricting equals gerrymandering.

As outlined by the coalition, if approved, any Illinois citizen could apply to join the legislative redistricting commission. A nonpartisan applicant review panel, appointed by the auditor general, would eliminate applicants with conflicts of interest, such as lobbyists or public officials. (Excluding anybody, of course, raises a new set of constitutional questions.)

A lottery then would be used to select commissioners to create a group of two Democrats, two Republicans and three unaffiliated with either party, all proportionally representing Illinois' five judicial districts. The four top legislative leaders in Illinois would each appoint one commissioner from the remaining pool. Commission meetings and records would be open to the public.

The problem I have with this solution to fix Illinois legislative redistricting is that to the extent that there is a human element involved, a remedy is hardly guaranteed. People in politics maneuver, and even finagle to gain partisan advantage.

I would opt for the simplest of all solutions. Create districts as nearly rectangular as possible (taking account of the fact Illinois is not square, but rather is bounded by wandering rivers, etc.) Require these districts be as equal in population as possible. Take account of no other factors. Leave race, creed, color, ethnicity, municipal subdivision boundaries, etc. out of the determination.

Have the district lines drawn by computers, with no directions in the program other than

1. Make them as rectangular as possible, and

2. As nearly equal in population as possible.

If a district is drawn to favor whites, it disfavors everybody else. If it is drawn to favor Latinos, it disfavors Irish guys.

At a minimum, my plan would certainly bar any congressional or legislative district that look like our present 17th Congressional District -- the epitome of a Gerrymander, or perhaps a crocodile, with its mouth open, perched on its keister!

Posted Online:  June 5, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Has Putin Borrowed Hitler's Playbook?

"The condition of the Sudeten Germans is indescribable. It is sought to annihilate them. As human beings they are oppressed and scandalously treated in an intolerable fashion ... The depriving of these people of their rights must come to an end. ... I have stated that the 'Reich' would not tolerate any further oppression of these three and a half million Germans, and I would ask the statesmen of foreign countries to be convinced that this is no mere form of words." -- Adolf Hitler, Nuremberg Speech, Sept. 12, 1938

Substitute "ethnic Russians in the Ukraine" for "Sudeten-Germans," "Russia" for "the Reich" and "Putin" for "Hitler," and you will find history repeating itself with Vladimir Putin starring in the role of Adolf Hitler.

On March 12, 1938, Hitler invaded Austria and declared unification of Austria with Nazi Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, which prohibited Austrian/German unification! Neither France nor Britain lifted a finger.

Plans for liquidation of Czechoslovakia had been drawn even before that. In June 1937, at Hitler's instructions, "the German General Staff undertook to draft plans for the dismemberment of the Czechoslovak state."

One draft stated, "The aim and object of this surprise attack by the German armed forces should be to eliminate from the very beginning and for the duration of the war the threat from Czechoslovakia to the rear of operations in the west, and to take from the Russian air force the most substantial portion of its operational bases in Czechoslovakia."

Concurrently, before his invasion of Austria, to gull the gullible, Hitler opened his public case against Czechoslovakia in a February 20, 1938 speech to the Reichstag.

"Over ten million Germans live in the two states (Austria and Czechoslovakia) adjoining our frontier." Hitler claimed it was Germany's duty to protect and to secure to them "general freedom, personal, political and ideological."

Konrad Heinlien, the Nazi Party leader in the Sudetenland, did all he could to foment unrest and afford Hitler a pretext to invade.

This, coupled with reliable rumors of German troop movements toward the Czech border, forced Czechoslovakia to declare a partial mobilization on May 20, 1938. To Hitler's perverted mind, the Czech response to menacing German troop movements was "an intolerable provocation."

Hitler's Jan. 30, 1939 post-invasion speech makes this unmistakably clear.
"In view of this intolerable provocation ... I resolved to settle once and for all, and this time radically, the Suedeten-German question. On May 28, I ordered preparation should be made for military action ... "

But Hitler's generals were nervous. They could not believe France would not honor its solemn treaty obligations to it faithful ally, Czechoslovakia, and that Britain would not honor its treaty obligations to France.

Accordingly, on June 18, Hitler wrote to  reassure his nervous general staff, "I will decide to take action against Czechoslovakia only if I am finally convinced, as in the case of the demilitarized zone and Austria, that France will not march, and that therefore England will not intervene."

In the months that followed, tensions rose. When the Czechs agreed to one German demand, the Germans would make further demands. What began as demands for more local autonomy within provinces of Czechoslovakia where the Germans constituted a majority, were ratcheted up to require the Czechs to evacuate the Sudetenland within five days. In an attempt to defuse the situation, British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain flew to Germany three times. After Chamberlain's first face-to-face meeting with Hitler, Chamberlain returned to Britain and met with his cabinet. He told the cabinet that "Hitler was in a fighting mood," "that the French had no fight in them," and that "there could be no question of resisting Hitler's demands upon Czechoslovakia."

In The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill writes that many of Chamberlain's ministers "found consolation in the notion that Hitler was merely seeming to vindicate on behalf of the Sudeten Germans 'the right of self-determination,'
and the 'claims of the minority to just treatment.' Indeed, some even inexplicably felt that 'Hitler was merely championing the small man against the Czech bully."

On Sept. 27, 1938, with the support of his ministers, Mr. Chamberlain told the British people "How horrible ... it is that we should be digging trenches
and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war. However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war. ... If we have to fight, it must be on larger issues than that."

On Sept. 29, Hitler, Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier of France, and Mussolini attended a one-day conference that led to the Munich Agreement, which handed over the Sudetenland to Germany. On returning home, on Sept. 30, Mr. Chamberlain told the British people.

"This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. ... We regard the agreement signed last night ... as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

The crowd cheered.

Later in the day, Mr. Chamberlain told the cheering crowds, "A British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

To his chagrin, Chamberlain learned that Hitler had no more regard for the Munich Agreement than he had for the Versailles Treaty.

First Georgia. Now the Ukraine. Putin is operating from the Hitler playbook, while President Obama is operating from Mr. Chamberlain's.

Soft words and appeasement didn't deter Hitler; nor will they deter Putin. It is time for all Americans to read Winston Churchill's The Gathering Storm. An administration resolved to be irresolute is no match for a determined dictator.


Posted Online:  May 24, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

If We Punish People for their Beliefs, Freedom Is Dead

At common law, all crimes consisted of two elements: an "intent" element and an "act" elements.

It was not a criminal conspiracy for two men to plan to rob a bank. The plan to rob the bank became a crime only when one or both did an act to further that intent, such as buying a hand gun to be used in the robbery.

Similarly, words alone do not constitute murder. If a man writes in his diary "I'm going to kill my neighbor," it is not murder, absent an act that effects the killing and a homicide.

The same principle is found in the First Amendment to our U. S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech."

In the words of our Supreme Court, "the Amendment (as it pertains to religion) embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be" (Abington v. Schempp, 1963).

The First Amendment absolutely guarantees one's right to believe that God wants all men to be cannibals. It does not, however, guarantee one's right to act on that belief. While you have an absolute right to believe that its okay to eat your neighbor, if you act upon that belief, you will face murder charges.

The amendment also guarantees free speech. And if Americans -- except within narrow exceptions -- have a right to voice their opinions publicly, they certainly have a right to have private conversations.

A man can express his bigotry in a private conversation in his home or with his wife without fear of prosecution. (I am talking here of private conversations expressing opinions. I am not talking about words used to discriminate or bully, or the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater. Words that are used to work discrimination, or to bully or to libel move beyond the realm of opinion or belief, and become "verbal acts.")

Our first Amendment was a reaction to the intolerance of medieval prosecutions of opinions and beliefs deemed "heretical." It was also fashioned as a check on the religious intolerance of colonial America, as evidenced in The Colony Laws of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Chapter 39.

It guarantees Americans both the right to speak as well as the right not to speak.

No man, for example, can be prosecuted for refusing to take an oath that he is not a member of the Communist party or Nazi party.

Jefferson and Madison saw the danger of trying to control people's beliefs. That's why Madison wrote the First Amendment which Jefferson explicated in his 1802 letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, -- that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, -- that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people (the 1st Amendment) which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

America came to this position knowing that no man was safe if he could be prosecuted for his thoughts -- his beliefs. Twenty-first century America seems to be rejecting that Jefferson/Madisonian notion.

To me, it is one thing to be a bigot. If you hate blacks or whites or Asians, or atheists or Catholics or Protestants or Jews or Muslims, etc., that may be wrong, evil, immoral or even reprehensible. But I fear punishing bigots solely on account of their beliefs. If people can be jailed, or be made to surrender their property, or be ostracized or deprived of their free speech rights for holding a belief deemed "politically incorrect" today, then they can just as well be deemed "bigoted" for holding the diametrically opposed "bigoted" belief tomorrow.

If today a man can be destroyed for holding traditional Catholic beliefs on marriage and homosexuality, recall that only a few hundred years ago that he would have been hauled before the Inquisition for not holding those same beliefs.

On the other hand, when a person acts upon his beliefs and wrongfully discriminates against and harms his neighbor, at that point rights must be balanced, wrongful discrimination punished and appropriate remedies fashioned.

But if people are going to be punished solely for their personal beliefs -- without acts in furtherance of those beliefs --— we are back to the days of the Inquisition -- an institution equally well-suited for enforcing the "orthodox beliefs" of whoever controls the government.

And if it is a crime to believe, others can be compelled to testify to prosecute that crime. In Nazi Germany, children were encouraged to report anything their parents said critical of the Nazi government. Parents went to concentration camps for their beliefs and political opinions.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment is premised on the notion that as long as a man does not act to hurt his neighbor and only believes, that he should be left alone. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, "The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom."

If America reaches the point where a man can be punished for his thoughts, his beliefs and his private conversations -- with no discriminatory act in furtherance thereof -- we will live in a police state, and suffer a reign of terror.

When men are punished for their beliefs, albeit repugnant beliefs, freedom is dead.

The First Amendment which protects both freedom of religion and speech, protects both favored and disfavored beliefs and speech. It also protects truthful as well as untruthful beliefs and speech. The alternative, requires thought-police," and a police state.

The proportional and appropriate remedy for bigoted beliefs or speech is counter-speech: Speech that informs, enlightens and holds the bigot's beliefs up to scrutiny - Speech that educates in the marketplace of ideas.

Posted Online:  May 17, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

In Defense of Corporations; They Revolutionized the World

During the years President Obama has been in office, corporations have been vilified.

It goes without say that corporations, like individuals, can behave badly and even criminally. But without corporations, there would be no modern America as we know it. It is not an overstatement to say that the "corporate form" allowed American business to produce the greatest economy that the world has ever known.

The corporation is not a modern invention. It was recognized in Roman Law in the Code of Justinian (reigned 527-565). The Dutch chartered the Dutch East India Co.; Charles II, the Hudson Bay Co. But such corporations were created by Royal or parliamentary grants.

In 1844, William Gladstone (England) and his Parliamentary Committee on Joint Stock Companies produced the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1844. It allowed establishing of a company as a separate legal person. The advantages largely were administrative; the act allowed creation of a unified entity to handle the affairs of the investors. It could sue and be sued just like a natural person. No longer did all the shareholders have to be named as plaintiffs, and no longer did all have to be individually named and served with process to be made defendants. The corporation also could buy, sell own and mortgage property.

It was not until 1855, however, that the English Parliament passed the Limited Liability Act that allowed investors to limit their liability in the event of business failure to the amount they had invested in the company, Shareholders now were liable directly to creditors only to the the extent that they had not paid for their shares in full. New York had passed a limited liability act for shareholders in 1811, but only to shareholders in "manufacturing" corporations.

These laws taken together allowed the financing of the Industrial Revolution. No longer did investors have to wheedle a royal or parliamentary grant. For the first time in history, it was possible for ordinary people to create a "corporation" through a simple registration procedure. Corporations now could have a perpetual existence. The business no longer had to "wind up," as in the case of the death of a member of a partnership. The business could sue and be sued. It could buy, sell, own and mortgage property as if it were an individual. Finally, English investors could pool funds to raise the giant pools of money needed to create railroads, steamship lines and great manufacturing concerns.

Limited liability meant that an investor could choose to risk a portion of his net wealth, without fear that if the venture went bankrupt the rest of his fortune would be seized to pay the debts of the venture. This was also fair to the creditors of the corporation because they knew up front the "authorized capital" of the business -- the total pool of money put at risk by the stockholders.

While there were earlier corporation acts in America, the Delaware General Corporations Act of 1899 has been the model for other such acts in the county.

It allowed any three or more persons to establish a corporation for the transaction of any legal business.

The Delaware Act of 1899 gave corporations the following powers:

1. To have a perpetual existence;

2. To sue and be sued;

3. To hold, purchase, mortgage and convey real and personal property for its corporate purposes;

4. To appoint officers and agents as required for its business purposes, and to suitably to compensate them;

5. To make bylaws fixing the number of directors to manage the affairs of the corporation.

The Certificate of Incorporation was required to (a) state the name of the corporation, (b) its principal place of business, (c) the nature of the business to be transacted, (d) the total authorized capital stock of the corporation (not less than $2000), (e) when the corporation was to commence operations, (f) whether its existence was limited or perpetual, and (g) whether the private property of stockholders shall be subject to the payment of corporate debts, and if so to what extent.

In a further effort to protect creditors, the corporation was barred from paying stockholders a dividend except out of surplus or net profits, and required to make accurate financial reports.

The advantages of the corporate form are obvious. When an individual dies, his business ends. When a partner dies, the partnership is dissolved, and a new partnership has to be set up, if the business is to continue. When a shareholder or a director of the corporation dies, the business goes on.

When an individual opts to go into business as an individual, he not only exposes his investment to creditors, he also exposes his entire wealth to their claims. The same is true of a traditional partnership or tradition joint venture. (Yes, there can be limited liability partnerships).

Limited liability allows the corporation to go to hundreds, thousands or even ten thousands of investors to raise the enormous sums necessary to finance an airline, a canal or even a company to put privately-owned satellites in orbit.

A corporation can abuse the powers granted to it. But so can a person, a partnership, an association or a government. Corporations aren't perfect because they are run by people. But at their worst, they have never been as bad a governments (e.g., Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia).

Without them, America would not have great railroads, airlines, auto companies, computer companies and charitable foundations. And we might well have lost World War II.

Today it is fashionable to be against allowing corporation to make political donations and expenditures. But corporations are people: managers, employees, and stockholders.

When individuals, associations, unions, PACs and the government speak against corporations and demand laws that control how corporations do business, basic fairness requires that corporations have the right, on behalf of themselves and their directors, stockholders, employees and customers, to make corporate expenditures and support politicians who are sympathetic to the their interests and those of their stockholders, customers and employees. Just because a person is employed by a corporation, he doesn't surrender his right of free speech if he happens to speak for a corporation.

If corporations speak falsely, the preferred 1st Amendment remedy is not to bar them from speaking; it's counter-speech to expose their falsehoods.

Posted Online:  May 06, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Congress, not Court, Opened Big-money Floodgate

For liberals/progressives, the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is the devil incarnate. Articles and letters litter these pages erroneously claiming that the court's 2010 decision "allowed unlimited money to flow to super PACs."

But that is not what Citizens United held. Nor is it what Citizens United was all about. It is a pathetic mischaracterization by people who either haven't bothered to read the case or, if they had, were clueless as to what they were reading. Justice John Paul Steven's dissenting opinion (in which all four liberals concurred) made this unmistakably clear.

"The real issue in this case concerns how ... (Citizens United) may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation (not a PAC) that (also) runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used (the PAC's assets) to televise and promote 'Hillary: The Movie' wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the ... primary election. ... All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period."

Justice Steven's remarks make crystal clear that Citizens United was not about allowing unlimited money to flow to super PACS. It was about allowing ordinary corporations that were not political action committees to use "funds from the general treasury," to engage in political speech without pre-approval from the Federal Election Commission or any other government entity right up to the election.

The Citizens United corporation (not a PAC) sued to void the ban on "independent expenditures" by the corporation saying it violated the First Amendment.

In January 2008, Citizens United released "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute documentary about then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, a 2008 Democrat presidential primary candidate. It depicts interviews with political commentators and other persons, most quite critical of Sen. Clinton. It was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to make it available through video-on-demand within the 30-day time period prohibited by FEC rules made pursuant to campaign reform law.

At trial, the U.S. District Court had found "there is no reasonable interpretation of Hillary other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton." It was "susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her."

Again in the words of dissenting Justice Stevens, "Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, (Citizens United) could have used (its PACs assets) to televise and promote Hillary ... wherever and whenever it wanted to. As such it was the BCRA itself -- and not the Supreme Court -- that allowed PACs to spend 'wherever and whenever it wanted to' except during the 30 days before the election. Citizen United simply gave corporations that were not PACS the same rights as BCRA gave corporations that were PACs, as well as striking down the '30 day period' prohibition."

To repeat, Citizens United was about allowing a corporation, not a PAC, to engage in political speech at any time without government pre-approval.

What liberals have made no effort to understand is that while PAC corporations and media corporations were allowed to "speak" by BCRA, business corporations and unions were prohibited from speaking (from making expenditures for "electioneering communication" or for speech "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate") at any time. The Supreme Court simply held that business corporations, and unions, have the same political rights under the First Amendment as corporate PACs.

The court noted that media corporations (radio, TV and cable) have "immense aggregations of wealth," accumulated "with the help of the corporate form." The court's holding gives non-media corporations the same right of free speech as media corporations. In doing so, the court noted the perversity if BCRA:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations -- including nonprofit advocacy corporations -- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election."

Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under that section: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a website telling the public to vote for a presidential candidate in light of that candidate's defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship."

Yet at the same time, BRCA permitted PACs, non-corporate billionaires, and corporate mega-media conglomerates to do the same.

The bottom line of the court's analysis is this: The First Amendment "'has its fullest and most urgent application' to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. ...

"Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution."

In a country where special interest groups can use their wealth and speak on behalf of candidates who promise to pass laws to ameliorate perceived "corporate excesses," corporations must be able to speak to defend themselves, and to oppose candidates and legislation that they see as destructive of their interests and the public interest. If the President can vilify corporations, the First Amendment " requires that they have an equal right to vilify him.


Posted Online:  April 22, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

How Much is Enough to Keep our Nation Safe?

It is a sad fact of history that the only thing worse than spending too much on a nation's armed forces, is spending too little. Excess spending wastes the nation's scarce resources. Inadequate spending can waste the whole nation.

In the 11-year period from 1930 through 1940, the U.S. spent $19.9 billion on our military and naval establishments, or about $1.8 billion per year. That averages to about 11.5 percent of the nation's total spending for each of those 11 years.

That level of spending was not sufficient to keep Japan from attacking us at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, or to prevent Germany from declaring war on us a few days thereafter.

Many in Japan felt that Japan could defeat America. Other Japanese felt they could, but only if they could defeat us in a short war; if they could break our will to fight further. That was the gamble behind Pearl Harbor -- beat America before it could bring its industrial might to bear.

In the days before World War II, those in charge of military and naval planning for the "great powers" realized that it took significant time for a nation to gear itself up to a "war-footing." Winston Churchill in "The Gathering Storm" spelled it out:

"... [M]unition production on a nation-wide plan is a four year task. The first year yields nothing; the second very little; the third a lot, and the fourth a flood. Hitler's Germany in this period was already in its third or fourth year of intense preparation under conditions ... which were almost the same as war. Britain, on the other hand, had only been moving on a non-emergency basis, with a weaker impulse, and on a far smaller scale. In 1938/38 British military expenditures of all kinds reached 304,000,000 pounds, and the German was at least 1,500,000,000 pounds."

In 1938, the British pound was equal to 3.223 American dollars. Accordingly, at a time America was spending $1.7 billion on its military establish, Germany was spending $4.8 billion. Had Germany won the Battle of Britain (July 10-Oct. 31, 1940) -- and it was a close run thing -- Germany may well have won the war before America was even in it. Had Britain fallen, the entire German war machine could have focused on the USSR. Had Britain surrendered, the U.S. would have had no England from which to launch the Normandy invasion.

Admittedly, things are different today. Today a nuclear war can be won or lost in a matter of hours. But because nobody had nuclear weapons in 1941, America had four years to convert its vast industrial base to a war-footing. Then, all those economies achieved from 1930 through 1940 were wiped out in a blizzard of war spending.

In 1941, the U.S. spent $7.2 billion or 30 percent of total spending on its military. In 1941, $27.1 billion or 59 percent. In 1942, $70.4 billion or 78 percent. In 1944, $86.1 billion or 78 percent and in 1945, $93.7 billion or 79 percent. During that five-year period, the U.S. spent $284.5 -- 14.3 times as much as it spent in the 11-year period during the1930s!

The question is, had the U.S. spent $5 billion per year from 1930 through 1940 (which included Depression years), would Germany and Japan have dared to go to war with U.S.? Rather than spending $55 billion over that 11-year period, we economized" The result was WWII. Had we spent $5 billion per year over the 16-year period beginning in 1930, we would have spent $80 billion on our defense. Instead, we spent $305 billion and sacrificed 418,500 American lives. Indeed, had we spent $10 billion a year over the 16 year period, it would have cost only $160 billion and probably no American lives. Germany and Japan would have realized it was suicidal to make war on our country.

Winston Churchill wrote his six-volume history of WWII so democracies would not repeat the follies that led to WWII.

"It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, first to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded in larger organism, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how, even in matters of self preservation, no policy is pursued even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires of safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull's eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and low of national politics." -- Churchill's "The Gathering Storm"

The only foreign policy that makes sense is for America to be so strong that all potential enemies realize that war with America means their destruction. Anything less bids fair to embroil us in mortal conflict. In 2013, the U. S. spent $819.5 on our national defense. That is 13 percent of our entire national spending. But excluding $161 billion for personnel pay and housing, the U.S is spending 10.4 percent on national defense; 11.5 percent wasn't sufficient to keep us out of WWII.

Will 10.4 percent be enough? That is the question.

Posted Online:  April 10, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea