Greetings!
One thing on my mind this month: the abominable Supreme Court decision in the McCutcheon v. FEC case. Shaun McCutcheon contributed to 17 candidates in 2011-2012, and wanted to support 11 more. His contributions were all under the per-candidate limits, but combined they would have exceeded the per-cycle limit. Shaun sued to prevent this muzzling of his free speech, and on April 2 the Supremes handed him the right to buy all the free speech he wants by striking down the per-cycle limits for Presidential and Congressional candidates. We have details on this story in our “News to Make You Furious” column this month, so I won’t dwell on the details here. Instead, I’d like offer a few thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion…
Among many other jaw-droppers, Justice Roberts said:
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects… If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
He’s right that the First Amendment protects those things, but it’s because stifling repugnant speech defeats the idea of free speech! This logic doesn’t apply to “money in politics”, which was not being restricted because it was repugnant. It was repugnant because it was (and is) dangerous to the very functioning of democracy! We have no democracy when our representatives only respond to the 1% who can write checks big enough to buy them!
McCutcheon is just one more look at what the power brokers think about democracy in America, and who has to pay the price for it. They have no problem if poor, elderly, or minority people lose their voting rights to solve a non-existent “voter fraud” problem. They solemnly intone that no law is perfect, and that if a few people (actually hundreds of thousands across the country) are adversely affected, that’s just the collateral damage of a secure voting system. But, when a few (the Sunlight Foundation identified about 20 people who would likely exceed the donation cap) rich guys can’t speak as loudly as they want in order to allow participation for the rest of the country, then democracy be damned.
Rights in a free society are a balancing act. I’m a huge believer in freedom of speech and I use that freedom but even I recognize it’s not absolute. “Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is the classic example of how a balance can be struck, but the SCOTUS didn’t attempt to strike a balance of any kind in their decision. They held that ‘freedom of speech’ was not only a good, but they blindly, cynically, obstinately held that it was the only good. No other considerations mattered. Corruption? Doesn’t exist. Political access? Who cares. They shamelessly used freedom of speech as a fig leaf while they, through malice or incompetence, drove yet another stake into the heart of representative democracy.
Take Care and Make a Great Day
