Our government is not listening to its people any more.
If you took a vote nation-wide, and perhaps we should this November, I believe we'd see the majority of individuals do want the ruling of Citizens United overturned (80% consensus, which is huge). But our representatives think they know better. Of course they do, because they aren't listening to the people that voted them into office. If they were, there would be a more efficient system for individuals to convey their opinions other than calling and writing. By the by, if you know of a more efficient system, by all means, leave a link in the comments so we can spread the word. Our government officials are listening to the companies and excessively wealthy individuals that helped pay for their campaigns (which is mostly marketing), who convinced all those voters to sway in their direction. Obviously, in this model, voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.
Voters no longer matter; only the people who manipulate the voters count.
The only thing worse than knowing the government is not willing to regulate campaign funds from corporations is that, in doing so, they are actively abridging our individual "freedom of speech". You'll note that the first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abridging the freedom of speech."
abridge (v.) - to reduce or lesson in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail; to deprive, cut off.
Special interest groups, corporations, even non-profits who are willing to funnel money into a campaign are effectively drowning out the authority of individuals' voices. This is the argument we should be making to the Supreme Court - that we must protect the diminished free speech of individuals by nullifying the over-funded agendas of the wealthy.
Ultimately, I believe this all boils down to simple addition. If the first amendment protects what we say, then in the voting process we still operate on the assumption that one person equals one vote. By allowing a corporation, definitively a collection of people, to also have a voice, and one that can out-spend an individual 100 to 1 (or more), then the individuals making up that collection have just extended their voting power. That is to say, unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes. It is a bidding war, not a test of moral fortitude. Arguments have been made accusing those who would overturn Citizens United would effectively amend the Bill of Rights, but it simply continues to redefine it to identify how it works in today's system. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect corporations; it was written to protect individuals.
Unregulated spending in political campaigns effectively buys more votes.
The first amendment protects what you can say, not HOW you say it. Cursing at the top of your lungs is still allowed, but if you do it at 2am and wake up your neighbors, there will be grounds for arresting you for disturbing the peace. If you want to make films that directly defame political candidates who oppose your political agenda, be my guest. But be prepared for legal backlash when you take outside money to promote or distribute it (they already got backlash when they tried to distribute the film just before a major political election). Even conservative political commentator George F. Will admitted "the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech".
dis sem i nate (v.) - to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse
By this definition, monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to amplify speech; it gives what is being said greater power and influence. Thus, overturning Citizens United would limit the power and influence corporations have over the voting public.
Monetary contributions are not speech directly, but help to AMPLIFY SPEECH; it gives WHAT is being said greater POWER and INFLUENCE.
Even reading through wikipedia to gleen more information on the first amendment, "campaign financing" stands out like a sore thumb. But perhaps it is because modern mobsters are alive and kicking within our government. Somewhere in the last few decades, mob bosses, who use money (and thus power over people) to intimidate, bully, and manipulate people into compliance, have found a new home on the other side of the legal system. They aren't hiding from the law any more, they are manipulating the lawmakers, and thus rigging the law, to their advantage. Even Al Franken compared the current ruling of Citizens United with money laundering. What the hell happened to accountability?
This is because we've forgotten what money is. Money is not speech. Speech, non-verbal, verbal, or expressionism, is speech. The old adage "put your money where your mouth is" very casually denotes the difference, in fact. Your mouth does the speaking; your money invests in its completion. This means that putting money anywhere is the next step AFTER speech, not the speech itself. A man walks up to you and says, "I like your hat", and there is no pretense or intention; but a man who walks up to you and says, "I like your hat" with a few bills in his hand now has the power to take it from you. He doesn't even need to offer the money to you, really. Just showing the money suggests the bargaining POWER of money. And that's what it boils down to, ladies and gents. The Supreme Court ruled that it has no authority to regulate POWER over the American public. The political mobster has tucked away his loaded pistol, which years ago would have been not-so-subtly used to get his way, in favor of the understated implication of quid pro quo.
I'm trying not to see this as the beginning of the end, but it's difficult. Oh, corporate America, how do thy own me? I shudder to count the ways.
