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?
