The Supreme Court’s recent McCutcheon ruling allows individuals to donate up to the current limit an amount of money to an unlimited number of candidates. This erases the limit set on the number of candidates one could finance. Of course this creates some new problems in our electoral process. Many we can anticipate, and probably just as many we can’t. It is possible that some aspects of the ruling may even create some positive effects, but for one reason alone, the negatives absolutely outweigh the positives. The overwhelming amount of expenditures being made in electoral campaigns cannot be seen as anything but a negative trend. I make this point not only on moral grounds, but also on sound economic principles.

The law was put in place to prevent wealthy individuals from affecting the outcome of any election; local, state and  federal. The outcome being that the winning candidate would owe allegiance to the person(s) who by funding the candidate’s campaign assures the candidates votes on legislative issues impacting the large money donors. Historically, the PACs frequently have funded candidates of both establishment parties. However those donations were limited to a single total, so in practice the donors leaned toward one candidate over another. That allows unlimited access, because that is what a campaign donation is, a request for access; wealthy individuals can and will fund both candidates. Why? Because no matter who wins, they get access and favor.

The reason for overturning the maximum number of funded candidates? Free speech. The logic somehow is that the money provided to a candidate so that the candidate can get their message out is itself free speech. The very same free speech as protected in the US Constitution. (I know my choice of  language is somewhat a subliminal negative message about the ruling, if it offends you; get over it.) Really? So I can go into Macy’s, go up to the clerk at the register with a cart full of clothes and then proceed  to pay for the clothes with a 2 hour speech, or perhaps if I use a lot of big, gotta look that one up in the dictionary words, I only have to speak for 15 minutes! I know, just because money equals speech does not mean that speech equals money. But, if I silently gave money to a cop after he (hypothetically, of course) pulled me over speeding isn’t that a closer example to this SCOTUS ruling?  Or am I trying to influence the cop into not handing me a very expensive speeding ticket?

No, money provided to a candidate can be used for the candidate to exercise her right to speak freely, but it has nothing to do with the donor’s right to speak freely. In fact, just the opposite. When I speak (or write) in favor of a candidate, then the words of endorsement are mine. I am responsible for the content, not the candidate. When I donate to a candidate, the opposite occurs. I get to speak to the candidate to influence her. And the larger the donation, the more private the conversation. Are you cynical yet? There is one last point. Even though there are dollar limits on the amount you can spend on any one candidate, it doesn’t stop the average influence seeker from funding party organizations to buy influence from. The amount of direct, legal influence a seeker can use to gather access is unlimited.

Gaining influence over our political leaders is described in the Constitution.  The right to assemble is an allowed form of influence.  And so isn’t the right to speak and write freely. But, nowhere does the Constitution equate speech or press to money or wealth. In fact, The Court has ruled that the right to vote cannot be associated with any sort of poll tax.  Money as speech is an artificial construct of the Supreme Court and the Court has taken that construct beyond any reasonable limit. We can speak freely, but not all the time. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded area is prohibited speech that endangers others. Making false accusations in print may make one subject to a libel suit. Assembling to commit violence or even assembling without permits are not allowed. Our freedoms have limits and we depend on the Congress to define them, and the Courts to name them. The McCutcheon case does the exact opposite, Congress had defined the limits to the concept of money as speech, a concept defined by the Court. 

What are the limits to money in speech? I would say that Congress determined that the limit is 18 candidates. Perhaps that limit is too high, but the question can also be asked at what decibel level is it OK to speak the word ‘fire’ in a crowd?

That is the type of analysis the court is supposed to make. At what limit does the campaign empowerment and ‘gratitude’ that comes from an unlimited amount of money becomes a bribe? How about the donor that gives to all sides the maximum amount? Isn’t it obvious that the donor is expecting whomever is the winner to return the favor? Very rarely does a large sum of money go to one party and also a small one. Isn’t that using one’s wealth to squeeze out points of view not held by either party an obvious and negative influence on our elections? Doesn’t allowing by multiple rulings virtually unlimited money into electing people divert from our economy more productive uses of that money?

There is much more that is wrong with this decision, as well the decisions regarding Citizen’s United and the Voting Rights act. In my mind, these 5 Justices need to answer in a public hearing. There is only one kind of hearing that will force the 5 Right Wing  justices to prove to Congress that they overturned standing law on sound Constitutional grounds. That would be an impeachment hearing. These 5 need to be impeached and if they cannot explain themselves sufficiently, they lose their jobs and their rulings could then be nullified by Congress restoring the overturned laws.