Rollerball

“Money doesn't talk, it swears!” - Bob Dylan - It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

A message to those who are upset about the Citizens United decision and plan on taking action to redress it: Kudos to you, thank you, but don't stop there. As Jeffrey Clements, author of “Corporations Are Not People” has pointed out, the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo also requires attention and action.

It was this 1976 decision that effectively conflated money with speech. In Buckley, the Court stated that “(t)he First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order "to assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people." And further, “(t)he First Amendment protects political association as well as political expression.” No one, including this writer, would argue against the unfettered exchange of ideas or against political association. Unfortunately, this is the point where the court exits the realm of reason and enter the realm of sophistry. Note this from the Court: “The interests served by the Act (Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) include restricting the voices of people and interest groups who have money to spend and reducing the over-all scope of federal election campaigns.” The FEC Act in no way restricts the voices of the people; it places restrictions on artificial institutions made up of many people. Neither does the Act restrict political association. Most disturbing of all is this statement from the Court: “A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” Aside from the twisted, laughable logic of the statement, the Court equates quantity with quality and completely overlooks the fundamental notion of “one man, one vote.”

I understand that the Constitution is open to interpretation, and that said interpretation is the role of the Court. However, in that role, Justices are sworn to “support and defend the Constitution” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” It seems prudent to me that, to bear true faith, any interpretation should focus on the intent of the founders, who were brilliant and prescient men. Many have argued that the founders could not have foreseen situations like the one in which we currently find ourselves. I would point these people to Federalist Paper #10, written by James Madison, chief architect of our Constitution. Madison wrote, “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.” To Madison, “faction” included many things: political parties, landed interests, mercantile interests, AND monied interests. Madison writes further: “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” Madison and the other founders were quite aware that humans are motivated by self-interest; they knew that removing the cause of faction was an impossibility. They did, however, believe in controlling its effects. The entire notion of balance of power in the Constitution is in place specifically to balance competing interests. Finally, the founders were well acquainted with the notion of natural law passed from Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas through John Locke; the founders were students of all three. The idea that artificial corporate bodies would somehow take precedence over individuals is patently absurd, as well as insulting to the legacy of these great men.

Our rights are not unlimited. My right to free speech carries limitations: I can not slander someone, I can not incite a riot, and I can not yell “movie” in a crowded firehouse. Yet somehow, in Buckley, the Court reasoned that any limitation on corporate expression violates their First Amendment rights. Corporations are certainly allowed to express their views via news conferences, press releases, and the like. In fact, using the Court's specious logic in Buckley, they already have greater “quantity” of expression than a lone individual based on the advantage of their resources. Why must we, as individuals, move further to the back of the bus when they are already in the driver's seat?

As Clements also points out, those of us who object to Citizens United and Buckley need not be discouraged in the face of the advantage of resources held by corporate interests. Americans have fought successfully to amend the Constitution before, even as over-matched opponents versus corporate Goliaths. Doing so will take passion and action. The first step is to raise your own voice.

“Everyone has choice

When to and not to raise their voices

It's you that decides.”

George Harrison - Run of the Mill