Lost in the investigations over the closings of several Chrysler dealerships is another debate over the legal rights of the administration in private enterprise.  Just as dealerships owned by Republican donors and fundraisers are being closed in much higher relative proportions than Dem dealerships, investment firms that held large chunks of Chrysler debt and attempted to negotiate terms with the government are being passed over for the smaller holders who played ball in a prospective bankruptcy deal.   

The White House attempted to strong-arm these investors into taking the terms that would be most favorable politically to the administration, overlooking the contracts that were signed and the precedent that the largest debt-holders are compensated first.  The investors had the gall to try to negotiate terms and Rattner & Co. would have none of it.  Lawyers representing these firms have filed suit, alleging that the feds are overstepping their bounds in the financial preparations.  The issue had become a large deal in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere, until the dealership fiasco and GM proceedings grabbed the headlines at the end of May.

However, the suddenness of the GM bankruptcy negotiations, with the UAW approving measures at nearly the last minute, underscores the need to cross t’s and dot i’s even at this stage in the game, let alone make sure that the government isn’t acting in contravention of the Constitution as the legal processes are set in motion. 

GOP legislators and pundits can not stop talking about the GM bankruptcy and what it means for the economy and the role of government, having repeated the same talking points for months.  I don’t know how it is in the rest of the country, but in Michigan, at least, the GM deliberations have been the top 10 or 20 issues in the news for the last several months to a year. 

We all understand the ramifications of the stimulus and what threats it poses to free market ideals and the management of moral hazards in financial institutions and sufficiently large corporations (like a ‘Big 3’ auto maker).  The new ground on which conservatives can take a stand is against the Chicago-style politicking of the President’s auto task force and its unconstitutional approach to government intervention. 

Private citizens are being illegally removed from negotiations in which they have a large interest because of their  entirely normal actions.  In an administration full of ulterior motive scandals, this is the most black and white legal qualm that an opposition could have.  And yet, the RNC spent its recent meetings discussing what sort of silly names best characterize liberals. 

I realize that getting directly involved in an ongoing legal challenge not pertaining to pending legislation is a bit out of step for legislators.  But what else could be keeping them so busy?  Why not take a stand on an easily-identifiable issue of individual liberty.  Forcing the administration to restructure Chrysler in the way prescribed by law can only benefit the economic recovery, and any sort of promised hit job by the administration will only highlight its illicit activities and threats.  It may be out of the ordinary for party officials to speak up and take a leadership role in creating a dialogue on this issue, but it may also be quite successful.

Last 5 posts by Gideon D'Assandro

• The Reality of Racial Politics - August 17th, 2009
• Thank God Obama's President - August 3rd, 2009
• Health Care Coverup - July 23rd, 2009
• The Suppressed EPA Report’s Effect on Healthcare - July 12th, 2009
• Social Conservatism Going Forward - July 5th, 2009