Yesterday I wrote a piece about the Fox interview I saw between Mark Levin and Ted Cruz.  Part of that interview was about the Citizens United Case, and I mentioned that my understanding of that case was apparently wrong, because Senator Ted Cruz told Levin’s audience the case was about free speech and a movie Obama didn’t like.

But one of my trusted readers received this following reply, and what that writer wrote matched my original understanding of the Citizens United Case.  That writer is also stating Cruz lied.

This is what the writer wrote:

Re:Democrats don’t care about your votes. (Or you.)

You got played in the information given. Like most lies of omission, it carried just enough “truth” to make it sound plausible but intentionally removed details in order to give you an impression contrary to the actual facts–Cruz lied.

501C-3 non-profit organizations such as “citizen’s united” can advocate all they want regarding political ISSUES and still fall under the standard of non-profit organizations and not be subject to reporting as campaign donations. It’s the same with churches–they can hawk issues all they want, no problem. Neither can promote a particular candidate or they fall under reporting rules as campaign donations, especially when coordinating with the campaign in question (they technically can’t..wink wink nod nod).

The Citizen’s United case claimed that as a non-profit they didn’t have to report donors or amounts on anything. SCOTUS ruled WRONGLY that money is equivalent to speech therefore all reporting went out the window. That means any corporation or FOREIGN ENTITY can donate anything they want to these organizations and it will be hidden from the public. Wouldn’t you like to know if Obama’s or Biden’s “helpers” happened to receive a few million from the Chinese government via laundering through a corporation? Isn’t knowing who is donating sums over a certain amount…funding the ads…of benefit to the public? Wouldn’t you like to actually see if Soros is dumping tens of millions into some pro-Clinton media group? the CI ruling says “Tough Titties…you can’t”.

Until the Citizen’s United case, transparency was legally required for non-profit organizations as the “cost” of not having to pay taxes. You could donate big bucks until the cows come home but it was in the open, not hidden.

Money is NOT the same as speech for reasons too complex to cover in a post. However what Citizens United actually did was HIDE WHO IS FUNDING those secondary organizations in elections. And far more comes from them than the campaigns themselves. Speech didn’t change—what changed was the ability for YOU to know who was “speaking” with truckloads of cash. That is bad for the public because you can no longer evaluate who is downright buying your congressman and who is just chipping a few bucks toward reelection.

Note also that those running for office get to pocket any campaign cash they take in and don’t spend (within some minor rules) when they “retire”. By “suggesting” that these blind donors give the BIG dark money elsewhere, that cash gets to remain in the campaign funds and get pocketed..Cruz himself could pocket about 51 million (as of July) if he happened to lose–just by encouraging dark money be spent instead of his own campaign funds. And you’ll never know if the money came from the King of Saudi or Koch Industries or a legitimate Grandma who happened to believe in him.

Okay gang, now who is telling the truth here?  This writer sounds like he knows what he’s writing about, and his version matches my original understanding of the Citizens United Case that did not involve a movie.
All I want to know is the truth, and that’s not easy in this present world of lies and liars.  If it turns out Cruz was lying or not being completely truthful, that makes him and Mark Levin jerks, but I can’t see a man like Mark Levin making a mistake as foolish as this might be.Nothing irritates me more nowadays than bad information, and we need to get to the bottom of this.
Carl F. Worden

%d bloggers like this: