Last week the Supreme Court ruled that individual Americans can now blow unlimited amounts of money on federal campaign contributions that elect officials who do absolutely nothing.
The problem with this decision is not purely the fact that it facilitates unequal opportunities for the average American to participate in politics, but it also signifies to the world that our nation cares more about living by its lofty principles than living by common sense.
The court argued that donating money is a form of free speech and thus cannot be restricted, despite the fact that money and speech are not equal forms of free expression. Everyone can speak. Not everyone can donate thousands or millions of dollars to influence politics. I can assure you the founding fathers did not foresee this interpretation of the First Amendment.
It is the classic battle between America’s two favorite words, freedom and equality. The difference between these lofty ideals is that unlimited freedom opens the door to anarchy whereas unlimited equality opens the door to…well maybe the America we all wish we lived in.
Regardless, the Supreme Court has decided that unlimited freedom is somehow more important than equal opportunity. The issue here is that if we allow the wealthy to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign donations, to candidates who will supposedly create policy for all Americans, we are inherently creating an unequal opportunity for the average American to influence politics. Instead of our elected officials controlling our government, it will be the wealthy Americans who put these officials in office.
It also makes absolutely no sense for Americans to be spending billions of dollars on federal campaigns, especially when this money has gone to elect the most partisan Congress since the Civil War and the most ineffective administration in my lifetime. These spiteful creatures do not deserve a single dime of our money when they are unable and unwilling to pass a single piece of legislation.
Furthermore, it is almost comical to think that a country that is trillions of dollars in debt has decided that one of the best uses of its money is to elect officials who would exist regardless of this money. Imagine if we put the billions of dollars spent on campaigns toward paying down our debt, instead of spending it on elections for the very officials who put us in this debt.
There is no logical reason for allowing these absurd amounts of money to be spent on campaigns, except to say that on principle, we cannot allow any regulation that restricts our freedom. But take this to its extreme, and we should not be able to restrict anything. Let us just bend the words of the Constitution to suit all our fancies, say that all acts of life are expressions of our free speech, and let us live in a world with no limits on anything. The implications of this case go far beyond campaign finance; they signify that America would rather be a country of principle instead of one of practicality.
America should not just cap election donations, but it should completely do away with such funding. Instead, we should move toward the type of elections held in Europe, where the government gives each candidate the same amount of money to spend on a campaign that can only last a few weeks prior to the election. It keeps the focus of the election on the issues and policies, rather than the nonsense that comes up during American elections. Most importantly, it creates an equal playing field for all candidates and all voters. Taxpayers finance the campaigns, so everyone is contributing and no one entity has more influence than another.
Alas, this type of campaign finance reform is probably far off if not impossible to imagine ever coming to fruition in America, especially in our current state of affairs. Instead, we will just continue to live as one nation, under the one percent, with liberty and injustice for all.
Girls, Who Run the World? 
As bad as it is to say, I didn’t really find myself all that surprised when I heard that decision. Although I can understand how spending money is a form of expression, the same loose definition of expression be said of an employer who refuses to hire black people or women because they don’t want to. By contrast, like you argue for, we are in need of a strong definition of what expression is and isn’t. Obviously an entity should not be entitled to more free expression than another because it creates, as you point out, an unjust imbalance.
What worries me is how much longer this trend of money-as-speech and corporate personhood will continue. Plainly, thinking Americans understand both concepts as unadulterated bullshit, being propelled by a plutocracy that wants to maintain its position of power. How far can this go?
Your argument for publicly funded campaigns is one I wholly support. I fail to see the reason why we need presidential elections to last 18 months. In that time period the candidates are forced to jump from one controversy to the next as more and more negative ads are created. I fully support a 4-6 week taxpayer funded election because it would keep the focus of the candidates on the issues at hand. Furthermore, they would not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Like the previous comment I was not at all surprised with the Court’s recent ruling. The majority of the court has been pushing the limits of campaign finance to the detriment of the public in my opinion. Similar to you, I fail to grasp the logic in their argument. I think the question you end your piece on, “How far can this go?” is interesting and also scary, because there is no clear answer. If the court was willing to sanction unlimited contributions by private individuals, then are they willing to strike contribution limits all together. If that happened, then a millionaire, or billionaire, could legal fund the campaign of his or her chosen candidate’s entire campaign. That does not sound very democratic to me. I fully support free speech, but I also support and believe in “one person, one vote.” As of now I cannot honestly say my vote is equal with the individual who can contribute the max limit to a candidate, and then donate 10 million to the candidate’s PAC. The candidate has no real incentive to listen to my issues, because I can’t purchase ad space, set up fundraising dinners, or pay for bumper stickers. The millionaire can though, and his money allows him access to the candidate. I am not sure where elections in this country are going, but as of now the future does not look promising.
I think we’ve reached a point in American history when the rich will only continue to get richer, and the masses of the poor will only continue to grow. The middle class is shrinking, and this will all continue until there is simply not enough food on the table for the average citizen to consume. This ruling is just another step toward the inevitable end game of social revolution, but the billionaires of today are banking on the hope that they won’t be around to see it. We are politically polarized, our media creates partisanship to drive ratings, our leaders our bought by lobbyists (Case Study: Israel) and no prominent politician TRULY gives a shit about the have-nots. We don’t live in a democratic society in 21st century America, but rather one shaped by the highest-bidder. That’s the truth of the matter, and this ruling — along with Citizens United — only goes to prove it. Logic, as you show by suggesting such campaign contributions go toward eliminating our debt with other countries, does not apply when you’re faced with corporate interest groups stuffing millions into your back pocket. I try to guard myself from being overly pessimistic and naive about the direction of the United States, but news like this makes it hard for me to believe in our country’s leaders. It’s a scary time to be a young American.
I agree that publically funded campaigns with an equal amount is the right way to go. It really says something about the candidates if they all start out at the same place, but then gain popularity thru their stances on certain issues. There’s no reason why that wouldn’t be fair.
However, the money may not be enough to reach as many voters as In the past. With campaign funding, presidents are able to visit different cities everyday to talk about their issues.
I wonder if America will ever be open to a system like this…
As many other commenters have mentioned, the rich keep getting richer and the poor, poorer. This is reinforced by things such as campaigns where the rich donate millions of dollars to basically buy a candidate. Publically funded campaigns are a great idea but there will always be a candidate that gets additional funding under the table and has an unfair advantage. The ruling by the Supreme Court reinforces the fact that money truly can buy anything, including speech. Why even have an election if the winner will typically be the candidate that brings in the most money, regardless of their stance on important issues, ironically including the deficit? American needs to be proactive and realize that this is not the way to approach political campaigns.
I think the controversy over these decisions comes from the contradiction between normative and positive perspectives on campaign financing. You says, “The Supreme Court has decided that unlimited freedom is somehow more important than equal opportunity.” In practice, yes, excessive campaign financing can skew the political marketplace to distort the perception of public opinion. However, restricting the right to express your opinions cannot be withheld to any citizen based on their identity, be it a conglomerate, corporate CEO or hot dog stand owner. The Judicial branch does not hold the power to designate a law as a good or bad policy decision, but can only rule as to whether or not it is unconstitutional.
Creating a campaign finance system that eliminates these inconsistencies is up to legislators and they are rising to that occasion. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/senate-campaign-finance-amendment-vote-106179.html I do think there is room for legislation to help level the playing field while protecting first amendment rights, but coming to an effective solution will take time and political capital.