Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Free Speech Equals Money, Doesn’t Quite Equate

The Supreme Court is reviewing a case challenging the political contributions limits law. This is a sequel to the challenge made that corporations were people and could spend more on political contributions and causes. The current case focuses on the question of whether the current limits on political contributions are a violation of an individual’s freedom of speech rights. The odds-on favorite decision is for the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff that it infringes upon his free speech.

The questions that won’t be asked and argued before the Court include what I suspect the Founding Fathers would consider the more significant and important ones. Thus while there are strict interpretation advocates on the Court, they are likely to have a blind eye to worrying about the intentions of the founders on this question as it might cause cognitive dissidence in a non-adaptive mind.

If we consider the easily understood position that money equals speech then it makes perfect sense that limiting the money that an individual chooses to expend toward their political goals is the same as preventing them from expressing their views, and hence their speech. More money allows you to basically shout louder which as we know in watching politicians is always an improvement in the value and virtues of their speech. Maybe money is speech because it allows you to buy someone who will speak on your behalf so you don’t have to; and in the case of politicians we know that you can buy them to say whatever you want them to. Perhaps more money is better characterized as a way to insure that more people listen to your views if for no other reason than sheer repetition of the message in the media distribution systems. But no matter how you characterize it, more money provides a direct, clear and easily associated substitute for speech. So just like everyone has the right to speak their views and opinions, and make their arguments for or against something, and to defend themselves against the opinions of others; being able to contribute money to someone’s political campaign is effectively the same thing.

And just like free speech, money is available to everyone equally. You and I can donate any amount of money that we chose to express our views, we are free to speak on an equal basis with anyone else. There is no bias in allowing someone with money to gain an advantage and privilege in having their speech attended to where someone with funds would be limited to not being able to have their views heard.

But if money is the same as free speech, and free speech is the right of every American, and not to be abridged by the government shouldn’t every American have the same rights? We should all be able to have our views expressed in comparable ways, right? So if someone donates a million dollars to a party that I believe is on the wrong side of an issue and the donated funding is used to present that party’s side to the public, my views should be presented to the public on an equal basis. Now given I don’t have a million dollars the political parties are just going to have to find a way to ensure that my speech is keep on par with their money (which is equal to speech).

Now if money is speech then politicians and parties should be willing to provide me with the same access and consideration that they will provide a money contributor. When they call and ask for a donation, they don’t accept my views or positions as having value and of being sufficient to grant me access. They treat money very differently than free speech.

And that is one of the principles, and principled, differences that the Court needs to consider. Money constitutes something very different than speech, ideas or rights. Money is a media of exchange that is meant to establish a means of trading one thing for another, to place a value on what I am getting for what you are giving up. The issue about money has nothing to do with anyone’s freedom of speech. It may be connected with some other right or freedom, but speech isn’t it.
The issue of money before the Court should be directed at whether there is a Constitutional basis for allowing or prohibiting money to be used to purchase the government? The effort of the wealthy to influence the political process is not new, it is not exclusive to our political system (any more than our system is exempt from it), and it brings consequences to our system of government when allowed and when permitted. As with many aspects of our society, the secret to America’s system is in finding checks and balances, in accommodations and compromises, and in protecting all members of our society from the majority whether the majority is counted in number of voters, or amount of money owned or controlled, or along any of the dimensions that America has present in its social amalgam (race, gender, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, …). Simply equating money to free speech is the act of a Court that has lost its responsibility to preserve the Constitutional principles that take precedence over the small and narrow minded attempts to gain influence at the expense of our free and democratic system. Politicians already listen to money. Encouraging them to listen to only big money is diminishing the influence of the non-wealthy minority. This can only lead to circumstances and conditions that weaken America and perhaps render it not a democracy but an oligarchy of wealth. Given the incompetence of Congress to protect the nation from their own parties, how would they ever be able to protect the nation from those who own them?