I absolutely love all the complaining about the outcome of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. First off, many of the complainers are hypocritical, especially the news commentators. After all, who enables them to reach the masses? None other than corporations.

2U.S.C.431(9)(B)(i) essentially states that political commentary is allowed through “the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate.”

Keith Olbermann serves as a key example of these hypocritical commentators given the fact that “journalistic” outlets have been exempt from the same restrictions that he calls for when it comes to “other” businesses. This fine specimen of intellectual bankruptcy cried on his show that the ruling has “more dire implications than Dred Scott” (http://tinyurl.com/ydb8ny5) and further went on to claim that the corporate world is going to be deciding elections.

So wait a minute. Olbermann, amongst others, sits comfortably in his prime-time pulpit, enabled by a corporate entity to spew his tripe, and then proceeds to bash the ability for “non-news” corporations to have their say? As John Stossel would say: “Give me a break.”

Did you know that General Electric is the owner of MSNBC? It would certainly be of benefit for Jeff Immelt to have other corporations prohibited from having their say . So Keith, wouldn’t you agree that either other companies should be allowed to have their say, or that the company that enables you to reach the masses be prohibited from doing so?

Of course it isn’t just hypocrisy to which these critics succumb to either, but their flat-out fear of their agendas being proven wrong. A prime example of this is Mike Hoffman’s latest column (in Jan. 20’s CM Life). In his column concerning the ruling, he talks about how tobacco companies ran ads describing increased taxes on tobacco as increased taxes on the lower class. From there, he proceeds to say, “This is a perfect example of how big business can skew facts to fit the message.” The next sentence? “The tobacco industry was actually not dishonest because most smokers in America are of a lower socioeconomic status.”

What’s going on here? Trying to use the tobacco tax fight as an example of things to come with this ruling where companies will distort the facts, all while admitting in the very next sentence that the companies were not dishonest? What’s the real concern? Is it that companies are going to run ads with untrue statements — which would certainly be countered by an opposing bankroll — or is it that some individuals and organizations are concerned with corporations who would run truthful ads that discredit their agenda?

A closing question I would like to ask the these critics is this: Do you believe that high-worth individuals should be prohibited from bankrolling ads advocating a particular political viewpoint? After all, Bill Gates or George Soros — real individuals — could easily buy prime airtime for their messages and “skew the facts.”