"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
At first the famous words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution sound pretty clear. How do you interpret those forty-five words to mean anything other than what the Founders intended them to mean? Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech for individ- oh wait...not just individuals. That's alright though. It wouldn't be fair if organizations or groups, such as the ACLU, Whole Foods, or your local Masonic lodge, couldn't voice their opinions about something. But "speech," upon closer inspection, is a vague word here. Actions, like the controversial burning of an American flag in protest of something, are arguably a form of speech and it makes sense protect people's freedom to do such things (as long as they don't incite violence and all that), organizations and groups included. These things don't really obstruct the democratic process. An individual walking down a sidewalk with a picket sign reading "The Government Sucks" or a whole corporation putting on a public demonstration aren't going to screw with our democracy. Unfortunately, though, there is something that has been argued as a matter of free speech1 that can screw up the democratic process: independent political expenditures.2
This was a huge issue in 2010 (and just recently) with the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case at the Supreme Court where it was decided that the First Amendment barred the government from restricting these independent political expenditures from corporations (and unions). Basically, corporations are allowed to spend as much money as they want trying to elect a candidate who supports their interests. The court has legally declared them as people. This...is no bueno.
I mean, it's nice to say that we shouldn't limit how much people want to "express" their support for a political candidate, but with enough money and influence, two things that big corporations have plenty of, elections, the engine of our democracy, can become games for corporations and a small number of individuals with "Super PACs" (organizations that let them get around limited individual donations). Freedom of speech is important, one of the most important things in any half-decent society, but to protect democracy from being sold out, campaign donations have to be limited. Although money is a way to express oneself, it's a form of speech (if you're one who considers it speech) that not everyone has equal access to (or acquisition of). Not restricting it in some sort of way is like allowing only certain individuals or groups to always use their vocal chords to protest while everyone else has a limited amount of time with their voice or allowing only certain individuals or groups to vote many times while everyone else votes only once.
What makes even less sense is the fact that huge corporations, with the apparent blessing of the Constitution, can pour as much of their millions or even billions3 as they want into a race (even if it's not a direct contribution), while the average person is limited by what they can afford (and only up to a certain amount). Even if individuals can donate unheard of amounts cash to Super PACs, only a tiny minority can do so on the level that all huge corporations can. When did corporations become more important than individual citizens?
The Super PAC, an integral part of this whole problem, which was born soon after the Citizens United ruling, is a special political action committee that could collect as much money as it wanted as long as it doesn't then contribute it to someone or something else that would spend on behalf of a candidate. So as along as the Super PACs don't coordinate with a campaign, corporations and wealthy citizens can funnel as much money as they want into them and have it spend independently supporting a candidate. It's pretty easy to come up with an example of why this is a bad thing. Say there are two candidates that are running for an office, both equal in how much they can spend through limited individual donations, party money, and their own money. One of them, though, just happens to be a huge supporter of corporate interests and the interests of the extremely wealthy. Then those wealthy individuals, who may make up a tiny fraction of the electorate, and corporations (sorry — people) can funnel a crapload of money into a Super PAC or two and destroy the other candidate who doesn't have the backing of these people and their money with negative ads and everything else you could buy to swing an election. In effect, this relatively small group of people and corporations can buy elections with enough money. If they do it enough, you might as well peel back the name "democracy" and laugh ironically at the corrupted process that's hiding behind it. If elections start to really go down this dark road, then our elected officials are going to be in the back pockets of whoever pays for their path to office and most Americans' interests will not be heeded.
Of course, there will be people who attempt to stand up to this practice and try to demonstrate the highly detrimental effects of it and its practitioners. But, just as likely, a ginormous tidal-wave of money will squash and silence them. Pretty bleak, eh?
Unfortunately, this practice will probably go on for a while and will be influential in the outcomes of many elections. Eventually, however, as the country gradually drifts away toward a more liberal perspective on government and society4 (as seen by the shift towards support for same-sex marriage and the like), a future Court will likely overturn Citizens United and we can go back to a more fair system for expressing our support for candidates.
Unless you're heavily invested in corporate interests and and enjoy the idea of plutocracy, I don't really get why people support the Citizens United ruling and its subsequent effects. Even if you consider money speech, wouldn't the idea of selling out democracy appall you more than equalizing people's ability to utilize this "form" of speech? Abraham Lincoln considered the United States a country with a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Do we today still want and appreciate his vision of the US?
1 Exercising your freedom of speech in terms of literal speech, burning a flag, or writing letter after letter to a newspaper, for example, are things everyone can do equally and as much as they really want (my apologies to those who are mute, pyrophobic, or illiterate). Spending money, on the other hand, although it is a way to express oneself, cannot be done equally by everyone.
2 "...a political campaign communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s authorized committee, or a political party." — Wikipedia
3 The day a corporation spends $1 billion in an election is the day I scribble "corporatocracy" on the Constitution and move to Vancouver.
4 Yes, I'm associating conservatism here with corporate personhood and all the other stuff I'm railing against in this article.
At first the famous words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution sound pretty clear. How do you interpret those forty-five words to mean anything other than what the Founders intended them to mean? Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech for individ- oh wait...not just individuals. That's alright though. It wouldn't be fair if organizations or groups, such as the ACLU, Whole Foods, or your local Masonic lodge, couldn't voice their opinions about something. But "speech," upon closer inspection, is a vague word here. Actions, like the controversial burning of an American flag in protest of something, are arguably a form of speech and it makes sense protect people's freedom to do such things (as long as they don't incite violence and all that), organizations and groups included. These things don't really obstruct the democratic process. An individual walking down a sidewalk with a picket sign reading "The Government Sucks" or a whole corporation putting on a public demonstration aren't going to screw with our democracy. Unfortunately, though, there is something that has been argued as a matter of free speech1 that can screw up the democratic process: independent political expenditures.2
This was a huge issue in 2010 (and just recently) with the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case at the Supreme Court where it was decided that the First Amendment barred the government from restricting these independent political expenditures from corporations (and unions). Basically, corporations are allowed to spend as much money as they want trying to elect a candidate who supports their interests. The court has legally declared them as people. This...is no bueno.
I mean, it's nice to say that we shouldn't limit how much people want to "express" their support for a political candidate, but with enough money and influence, two things that big corporations have plenty of, elections, the engine of our democracy, can become games for corporations and a small number of individuals with "Super PACs" (organizations that let them get around limited individual donations). Freedom of speech is important, one of the most important things in any half-decent society, but to protect democracy from being sold out, campaign donations have to be limited. Although money is a way to express oneself, it's a form of speech (if you're one who considers it speech) that not everyone has equal access to (or acquisition of). Not restricting it in some sort of way is like allowing only certain individuals or groups to always use their vocal chords to protest while everyone else has a limited amount of time with their voice or allowing only certain individuals or groups to vote many times while everyone else votes only once.
What makes even less sense is the fact that huge corporations, with the apparent blessing of the Constitution, can pour as much of their millions or even billions3 as they want into a race (even if it's not a direct contribution), while the average person is limited by what they can afford (and only up to a certain amount). Even if individuals can donate unheard of amounts cash to Super PACs, only a tiny minority can do so on the level that all huge corporations can. When did corporations become more important than individual citizens?
The Super PAC, an integral part of this whole problem, which was born soon after the Citizens United ruling, is a special political action committee that could collect as much money as it wanted as long as it doesn't then contribute it to someone or something else that would spend on behalf of a candidate. So as along as the Super PACs don't coordinate with a campaign, corporations and wealthy citizens can funnel as much money as they want into them and have it spend independently supporting a candidate. It's pretty easy to come up with an example of why this is a bad thing. Say there are two candidates that are running for an office, both equal in how much they can spend through limited individual donations, party money, and their own money. One of them, though, just happens to be a huge supporter of corporate interests and the interests of the extremely wealthy. Then those wealthy individuals, who may make up a tiny fraction of the electorate, and corporations (sorry — people) can funnel a crapload of money into a Super PAC or two and destroy the other candidate who doesn't have the backing of these people and their money with negative ads and everything else you could buy to swing an election. In effect, this relatively small group of people and corporations can buy elections with enough money. If they do it enough, you might as well peel back the name "democracy" and laugh ironically at the corrupted process that's hiding behind it. If elections start to really go down this dark road, then our elected officials are going to be in the back pockets of whoever pays for their path to office and most Americans' interests will not be heeded.
Of course, there will be people who attempt to stand up to this practice and try to demonstrate the highly detrimental effects of it and its practitioners. But, just as likely, a ginormous tidal-wave of money will squash and silence them. Pretty bleak, eh?
Unfortunately, this practice will probably go on for a while and will be influential in the outcomes of many elections. Eventually, however, as the country gradually drifts away toward a more liberal perspective on government and society4 (as seen by the shift towards support for same-sex marriage and the like), a future Court will likely overturn Citizens United and we can go back to a more fair system for expressing our support for candidates.
Unless you're heavily invested in corporate interests and and enjoy the idea of plutocracy, I don't really get why people support the Citizens United ruling and its subsequent effects. Even if you consider money speech, wouldn't the idea of selling out democracy appall you more than equalizing people's ability to utilize this "form" of speech? Abraham Lincoln considered the United States a country with a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Do we today still want and appreciate his vision of the US?
1 Exercising your freedom of speech in terms of literal speech, burning a flag, or writing letter after letter to a newspaper, for example, are things everyone can do equally and as much as they really want (my apologies to those who are mute, pyrophobic, or illiterate). Spending money, on the other hand, although it is a way to express oneself, cannot be done equally by everyone.
2 "...a political campaign communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s authorized committee, or a political party." — Wikipedia
3 The day a corporation spends $1 billion in an election is the day I scribble "corporatocracy" on the Constitution and move to Vancouver.
4 Yes, I'm associating conservatism here with corporate personhood and all the other stuff I'm railing against in this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment