When it comes to politics, money is power. If there were ever any doubt of that, ponder this: Let's say you gave $50 to Barack Obama's campaign in 2008, maybe again in 2012, and what did you get in return? If you were lucky you may have received a form letter thanking you for your donation, printed on plain paper and sent out via bulk mail. Now, let's say someone gave the maximum to Obama's campaign, as well as donations from 10 other members of their family with their money. You can be certain that such a donor does not receive a form letter in the mail. No, that donor receives a personal phone call, because to do otherwise constitutes a grave insult. It's the political equivalent of calling your grandmother to thank her for her fine Christmas gift, a personal touch is sometimes required lest you seem ungrateful.
With that donation, therefore, comes access. They now have the ear of the potential President, for however fleeting a time that may be. They can use that time to raise an issue that they find important, which will be duly noted and assigned for research and future action to a staffer, who will from time to time offer a reminder. As every politician wishes to be re-elected, that issue will carry significant weight, because with it comes further donations that cannot be ignored.
In the meantime, our $50 donor writes letters, sends e-mails, and has serious and sincere concerns that they would like to see addressed. In the grand scheme of things, though, such a paltry donation isn't particularly meaningful. Now-President Obama only has so much time, and someone who offers such a pro-forma donation simply doesn't rate. This person may become upset and refrain from voting for Obama again in the future, but what's one voter when 125 million turn out to vote and Obama's re-election is not in doubt?
Last week the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon v. FEC in a 5-4 decision, with the Justices splitting as they often do and Kennedy providing the deciding vote as he often does. Prior to this decision, the maximum donation of $2,600 per election cycle could only be given to 9 candidates, limiting the type of access described above. Following the decision, a sufficiently wealthy donor can give the maximum to as many candidates as he wants to. Said donor can now gain access to every single member of Congress at their leisure. Naturally, a Democratic donor will not be giving to Republicans, but if they hit every Democratic candidate the donor will have the ability to influence all of those candidates, thus having the ability to not only influence lawmaking but also to essentially write the laws themselves. Rare indeed is the Congressman who has the fortitude to defy his largest donors, and with so few donors capable of doing something like this, more power is concentrated into the hands of a select few whose interests rarely coincide with those of the average citizen.
And yet, the decision by the Supreme Court was the right one. Free speech is free speech. We would not tolerate any limits on our speech, or our right of association, yet we would impose those limits on others. Even if the reason is well-intentioned and ultimately beneficial to society as a whole, it is still impermissible.
So now we are left with an untenable situation. As citizens we have a right to expect that the people we elect will represent us honorably even as we know that not only can they be bought but the buyers are not likely to have our interests in mind. It has always been that way, just not so blatantly. Perhaps it is time to amend the Constitution to limit campaign contributions. The obvious problem is that amending the Constitution typically requires a Congressional supermajority, and what Congressman wants to kill the golden goose? For that matter, national offices aren't the only ones that require money to win, and state Congressmen aren't any more likely to vote to ratify such an amendment.
For the average person, their free speech costs them nothing, and as such is valued as nothing. Speech is only as valued as that which accompanies it, and when it comes with loads of money it has significant value indeed. It is the best free speech money can buy.
No comments:
Post a Comment