The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations and special interests can purchase as much campaign influence as they can afford… as can private citizens. On the surface that sounds reasonable, but stop and consider how unequal that really makes the playing field. We the People simply don’t have the nearly unlimited amounts of cash to try to match that available to corporate interests. The net result of that is that political speech isn’t free but goes to the highest bidder because very few individuals can amass the cash needed to produce TV ads and then buy the air time.
The United States of American might as well be renamed The Corporate States of America. I’m not surprised that the current court decided in favor of the corporations. But I am bitterly disappointed.
Do read Ruth Marcus’ piece in the Washington Post. She excoriates the justices on a number of fronts. What fascinates me about the reaction to the ruling is the near glee of the very same conservatives who decry judicial activism when a decision isn’t to their liking. This ruling is clearly an example of judicial activism in that it overturned both precedent and settled law — things that both Roberts and Alito claimed in their confirmation hearings to support. And it turns on its head Chief Justice Roberts’ stated judicial philosophy of incrementalism — a preference for ruling narrowly whenever possible.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a staunch supporter of free speech. But with rights come responsibility. Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. I wonder how the justices can justify that their ruling protects the free speech rights of individuals whose megaphones cannot possibly match those of corporations with deep pockets. Sure, there are a few individuals who can, but there are hundreds of millions who cannot. And what in the ruling is to stop a multi-national corporation, let alone a wholly foreign owned one, to purchase air time in an attempt to sway American voters? This ruling seems to be a case of unintended consequences writ large. Do the Justices not have the responsibility to consider the implications of their rulings?