How to overturn Citizens United … by the U.S. House of Representatives

Posted on September 25, 2012


Say what you will about us subversive, America-hating, commie, Socialist bloggers … but we have the most intriguing ideas.

On the drive home from work tonight, I believe I have stumbled upon the exact way to get Citizens United overturned; and the solution is on the U.S. House of Representatives website in a little law they call, Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part 1 – Crimes, Chapter 17 – Coins and Currency, Section 333 – Mutilation of National Bank Obligations.

This law states: “Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

In short, writing on money is illegal.

Commonly referred to as simply “Citizens United,” the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The case literally established that money given to political campaigns by corporations and other entities is protected as an expression of free speech. United States currency and coinage are governed by this federal law through the U.S. Treasury Department.

The nuts and bolts are this: If Citizens United created the law that “money is free speech,” then how can it be illegal to write — which is also a physical expression of free speech —  on money — which is defined by law as a VEHICLE of free speech?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving in Washington, D.C., and the United States Secret Service (which, for some unknown reason, has jurisdiction in currency defamation issues instead of the FBI which handles forgery and counterfeiting issues), writing on U.S. currency is, indeed, a violation of the law, although only technically. But since the entire argument of Citizens United is based on some rather extreme technicalities, why shouldn’t this technicality carry equal weight?

Last time I checked, one law cannot directly contradict a superseding law. But I’d have to defer to far better legal scholars than myself. But I would hazard a guess that it’s at least worth the time to research it, even if evidence supports my theory would be overruled and overturned – or simply ignored – by the current corporate-sponsored U.S. Supreme Court. The more recent law will usually take precedence.

The two laws are clearly mutually exclusive and directly contradictory. It boils down to one simple truth: One method of using money as free speech is directly beneficial to a group of people with a direct political agenda; the other isn’t.  It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out which method gets the thumbs up in our current corporate-owned judicial system.