Politico reported this morning that Morgan Freeman donated $1 million to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA last month. The organization has reportedly been struggling to drum up donors, which isn’t surprising as Democrats have spent the past two years demonizing super PACs. Clearly, they hope Freeman’s donation will signal to wealthy liberals that it’s okay to support these groups.
But note Freeman’s statement out this morning:
“Pres. Obama has done a remarkable job in historically difficult circumstances. … I am proud to lend my voice … to those who defend him. Priorities USA Action is doing a great job of protecting the values I believe in. I am happy to help them and I hope others will join me.”
He wasn’t defending his donation as a necessary evil. Instead, he said he was “proud to lend [his] voice.” That’s an interesting choice in wording, considering Democrats have been mocking the idea that political spending is protected speech for the last two years.
But Freeman is right, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it. Political spending is a form of free expression. As Justice Antonin Scalia explained eloquently to CNN’s Piers Morgan last night, “You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech.”
Scalia: You can’t separate speech from the money that facilitates the speech.
Morgan: Can’t you?
Scalia: It’s utterly impossible. Could you tell newspaper publishers you can only spend so much money in the publication of your newspaper?
Exactly. If you limit the amount of money that can be spent on speech, you are consequently limiting the speech. It’s true that some people have more to spend on this than others. But there are all kinds of inequalities when it comes to speech. Some people run newspapers. Some people have radio shows. Some people have prominent jobs that provide them with platforms to reach large audiences.
And then there are those who choose to spend their own money to express their voices on politics. Freeman apparently gets it. When will Senate Democrats figure it out?
I watched the Piers "Gotcha Moment" Enterprise with Scalia last night. And at the end, I gloated because Morgan was relentless in his efforts to pin Scalia against the wall of the universe's moment and he miserably failed, time and time again. I was in awe of Scalia's measured, calm, and calculated responses – he did nothing but validate his erudition against the on-the-surface-polish of Morgan (inside one could tell he was frothing as the typical leftist-ad-hominem-attacker). It was a fine hour for those who refuse to swallow the hijacked narrative of a court run awry. I laughed at Morgan's audacity and cheered at Scalia's calm during Morgan's storm.
Why Mr. Freeman do want to defend a man who has done nothing but put this country into a deep nose dive toward mediocraty. And while we're at it just what has he done for those Americans of African desent (I despise hyphens) that voted for him in droves, absolutely nothing, they are in the same boat as the rest of the population if not worse. They have an unemployment rate that is 6% higher that the national average, their welfare numbers far out distance any other group. No Mr. Freeman I would not be defending him nor would I be contributing to any whose goal is to destroy the nation I, that to this point made you a very well repected thespian, and turn it over to the UN and it's agenda 21 goals.