And now, your daily dose of irony.
Retired Senator Russ Feingold whined:
“The Supreme Court had a perfect chance today to clean up the corrupt mess created by their lawless Citizens United decision. Instead, they just shrugged.”
You’ve heard them (liberals) carp and moan about the evils of corporate speech in elections.
Yet, also this week, Oreo posted a picture on its facebook page of one of its famous cookies not just double stuffed — sextuple stuffed –with rainbow frosting to celebrate gay pride month with the caption “Proudly support love.”
This corporate speech drew praise from liberal and pro-gay rights groups.
The Human Rights Campaign commented:
We just found yet another reason to love Oreos! …Guess we’ll just have to stop by the grocery store on the way home today!
Ironically, many of the same people who are praising Oreo/Kraft for speaking out in favor of gay rights are the very same people who denounce the Supreme Court for Citizens United and American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock because they are opposed to the evils of “corporate influence” on politics.
To which I say please, for the sake of consistency, pick a side. You can’t have it both ways. You either like corporate speech or you don’t. Picking and choosing which speech you like depending on whether you agree with it is disingenuous.
(Previously, I’ve posited why buying/not buying things based on a company’s action/inaction on your issue du jour is stupid, but would a box of 6x normal sized Oreos put you on the fast track to diabetes? Then again, these people also were so happy Google opposed SOPA…)
Addendum: Because I, like the Supreme Court, accept that political speech is indeed a valid type of corporate speech, I think it’s ironic that some liberals say one but not the other is OK. I didn’t nuance this on the post because I accept it as fact. If liberals can acknowledge that corporations (and unions) have a right to be involved in political discourse, then it is hypocritical to support one but not both aspects of free speech.