Introduction:
Money makes the world go around. A funny phenomenon happens to those that have more money than others. The world tends to go around them. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has decided that money is free speech and has thus allowed unlimited political contributions legally towards something called Super PACS. Before 2010, regular PACS were only allowed to give a candidate up to $ 5,000 per year for his or her campaign. But, to what extent can money be considered as free speech? Thomas Jefferson championed “unalienable rights” and the entitlement of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Speech, in the form of written and spoken ideas, can of course be defended by nature because ideas cannot be inherited by birth, but only through self-effort (i.e. study, experience, social action, etc). Also, ideas are limitless because there is no measure of imagination. On the contrary, money can be inherited and money in itself is finite (though for some it may seem that wealth grows indefinitely). Thus, is money an unalienable right that deserves to be guarded by the ideas espoused by the framers of the U.S. Constitution? Money in politics is not free speech because it gives those with more money more leverage to change the political spectrum. In the United States, as in many other countries, most wealth is concentrated in a minority of the population thus giving more “speech” or power to those who number few. The United States must ideally work as a republic, though at times it may seem to function as an aristocracy.
The Supreme Court on Money as Free Speech:
The case was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission whose ruling overturned the restrictions placed on campaign contributions outlined in the McCain-Feingold Act. The decision made in early 2010 gave rise to the “Super PACS,” a new look for the Political Action Committees, but now with the added power to use unlimited amounts of money for candidates, unions, and elections. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and he offers some insight onto why PACs should be given the ability to spend indefinitely. The syllabus for the case cites two important points for its argument. First, PACs, by definition, are separate from any corporation and are supported through donation, thus they do not reflect on the interest of a business or special interest, but more on the interests of those who donate. Secondly, corporations are people as well, so any large sum of money donated to a PAC through a corporation merely reflects the opinions and interests of the shareholders of the corporation. My problem with this argument of money as speech is that the amount of money in itself has a different characteristic of value than any other form of speech. In other words, one million dollars can buy an individual a house, a car, a model wife. One million opinions fighting for civil rights, social change, legislation will buy you violence, aggression, and fame to a degree. One needs money to survive, but intelligence comes out of an honest desire for truth. A person can be a complete idiot, but as long as he has money he finds success (i.e. many hip hop artists). Intelligence is not vital for survival. Therefore, a million dollar donation will surely pull a candidate towards the direction of the donor than towards the direction of the person who argues an issue with a million opinions. Moreover, if a person donates $ 1,000 to a super PAC, then another person donates $100 to an opposing super PAC, does the first individual’s “opinion” matter ten times more?
Roemer v. Romney
They’re both running for the office of the President of the United States. They both belong to the same party and they both seem to have a moderate conservative stance on issues as the Republican Party seems to slowly drift into Tea Party waters. Romney ranks high in the polls while Roemer cannot seem to break 5% in most polls. Romney has a strong corporate background while Roemer has been both a congressman and a governor for the state of Louisiana. Apart from the issues, and away from the Party politics lies an almost ignored issue of campaign contributions and money in politics that seems to be Roemer’s staple, an idea he stressed in a recent interview with Jon Stewart (9/6/11). Roemer talks money amidst a problem for the lack thereof in the pockets of many people. On his site and in the interview with Stewart, Roemer said that he believed money was free speech, but he also considered money a corrupting force in favor of special interests and lobbyists. Money feeds political stagnation. A sign of his fight against money in politics is his 100$ limit on all donations to his campaign along with full disclosure. On the contrary, a pro-Romney super PAC, named Restore Our Future, received an anonymous donation of one million dollars from former Bain capital (Romney’s private equity investment group) managing director Ed Conard. To grasp how big a donation $ 1,000,000 really is, consider that it would require 10,000 maximum donations from Roemer supporters to match just one donation from a former associate of Mitt Romney. It would take 10,000 donations from people who had strong support for the views and actions of a candidate to match the will of one individual who happens to be rich enough to donate en masse. In Romney’s defense, the money did not go directly to him and in this case it was donated to a PAC that supports him. Nonetheless, to think that one million dollars from a pro-Romney PAC will not be used to support his campaign is foolish.
Conclusion:
Business creates money and politics defends rights. In my opinion there is no crossover. Of course, money is a big motivator and it does fulfill self-interest. I am sure that no medical doctor would invest so much money and time in school and training to earn meager amounts in salary and bonuses every year. But, there is a difference between self-interest and greed. Self-interest serves as the want and need to fulfill one’s own need for survival and pleasures. Greed is over indulging in self-interest (mostly pleasure over need) at the expense of others. Take self-interest as a small business fulfilling the needs of supply and demand in a city. Take greed as a giant company that uses illegal immigrants for cheap labor as a way to maximize profits. Greed is good… only to the extent that it can be exploited against others to the benefit of a few. Self-interest is inherent; greed is created. One can’t blame business because its sole purpose is to make money, and the sole purpose of politics is to defend the rights of its citizens. Now, when money is used to influence politics, the rights that are defended are those of that have the most money and thus most power. Freedom of speech is a way for the grievances, rights, and opinions of the individuals who make the population of the United States, despite class, color, religion, to change politics in a way through writing, singing, and drawing (these possibilities are infinite). Money, on the other hand, speaks for itself and needs no interpretation, it is necessary of course as a medium of trade, but not as a mediator in politics.
Disclaimer: Super PACS and unlimited contributions do not have an affiliation for just one party, but instead seep into all politics. Barack Obama has beat every Republican candidate in fundraising by large margins and to think that most of the donations were from regular people (considering how low his numbers are) is also foolish. Large corporations, companies, and individuals have also fueled Obama’s campaign as much as it has fueled the campaigns of thousands of congressmen, senators, governors and presidential candidates from both parties. There is no exception in my argument from any political sphere that makes decisions in accordance with money and special interests.
Sources:
