On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say "NO" to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation - that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price…[more]

July 15, 2019 • 02:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Citizens United Critics' Predictions Have Fallen Flat Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, October 19 2017
All told, only one of the top 40 contributors to super PACs in 2016 was a corporation, whereas eight labor unions were among that group.

Critics of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision were always wrong on the legal merits. 

Now, after nearly a decade and several election cycles to assess its impact, critics have proven equally inept in predicting the decision's practical effects. 

Regarding the legal merits, the First Amendment commands, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

As with any other constitutional right, those rights obviously aren't absolute.  Defamation laws, for instance, remain valid despite the First Amendment.  Similarly, prohibitions against private possession of nuclear weaponry remain valid despite the Second Amendment, and warrantless police searches and seizures remain valid in many circumstances despite the Fourth Amendment. 

Nevertheless, the First Amendment's unambiguous terms set a high bar against any proposed restriction.  Anyone advocating limitation of its enumerated freedoms must carry an extremely heavy burden of proof to sustain their proposed restrictions. 

In the case of Citizens United, as with so-called "campaign finance reform" laws generally, that burden simply wasn't anywhere close to being met.  The question presented in that case was whether the government could prohibit a conservative nonprofit organization from airing a short film critical of candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary race. 

That's precisely the type of political speech that our Founding Fathers sought to protect in ratifying the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court correctly held the prohibition unconstitutional. 

The predictable jeremiads and lamentations were immediate.  Those who prefer a mainstream media monopoly on political discourse agreed with The New York Times editorial that corporations would suddenly "use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections." 

Barack Obamaa former constitutional law professoreven stooped to crudely misstating the Citizens United holding to a worldwide audience in his State of the Union address: 

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.  Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. 

That was flatly incorrect.  Federal law banned, and still bans, foreign nationals from donating to any U.S. political party, spending in connection with any election in the U.S., subsidizing any electioneering communication or contributing to a candidate. 

And now, we can test critics' predictions of corporate takeover of the nation's elections against several cycles of accumulated data.  Unsurprisingly, their doomsday assurances proved just as defective as their legal arguments. 

Even setting aside the 2012 election cycle because it came so soon after Citizens United, the 2016 cycle tells a very different tale than the one predicted by the decision's antagonists. 

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, so-called "super PACs" raised a total of $1.8 billion for the 2016 elections.  Of that amount, $1 billion, or approximately 55%, came from individual donors.  Just $242 million - less than one-sixth - came from nonprofit organizations, trade associations and labor unions. 

And what about actual business corporations?  All of them added together only accounted for $85 million. 

To put that in perspective, leftist billionaire and environmental activist Thomas Steyer alone donated $89.5 million to super PACs in the 2016 cycle, more than any other group or individual.  Somehow that hasn't interrupted his ongoing assaults against Citizens United, hypocritically telling PBS, "We felt from the beginning that Citizens United was a mistake, that the way money is used in American campaigns isn't good for democracy." 

Makes perfect sense. 

Placing fifth on the list of largest political donors was an organization named "NextGen Climate Action," which accounted for $33 million of PAC donations, and leftist Priorities USA action right behind at $26 million.  Placing tenth in the list of top super PAC donors was former New York City mayor and all-around lifestyle scold Michael Bloomberg at $24 million, just behind the National Education Association teachers' union and just ahead of the activist Service Employees International Union. 

All told, only one of the top 40 contributors to super PACs in 2016 was a corporation, whereas eight labor unions were among that group. 

And here's another dirty little secret that labor unions don't want you to know:  They donate approximately 95% of their political contributions to Democrats, whereas corporations tend to split closer to 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. 

This accumulation of inconvenient facts likely won't end leftists' ongoing attacks against Citizens United, which merely respected the First Amendment's prohibition against government censorship of private political speech, and weakened the mainstream media domination of electoral discourse.  But nobody should maintain any illusion that critics' predictions were any more credible than their legal arguments. 

Question of the Week   
On July 20, 1969, the first man to walk on the Moon was Neil Armstrong, making “one giant leap for Mankind.” Who was the last person to walk on the Moon?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Months of bleak polling couldn't stop the parade of lower-level Democrats crowding into the presidential primary.But bankruptcy might.Eleven Democratic presidential candidates -- nearly half of the sprawling field -- spent more campaign cash than they raised in the second quarter of the year, according to new financial disclosures filed Monday. Eight contenders active in the spring limped forward…[more]
 
 
—David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
— David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
 
Liberty Poll   

Do the "politics of personal destruction," now rampant across the political spectrum and amplified by the media, make you more or less inclined to personally participate in political activity?