Freedom of Money?

Readers of this blog will know I am a fierce critic of American political campaign finance laws. The problems stem from the interpretation of part of the First Amendment, which provides: “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…”  The Oxford English Dictionary defines speech as “the act of speaking, the natural exercise of the vocal chords, the utterance of words or sentences, talk, speaking and discourse, the opportunity to speak and converse, and so on.” In this long definition, there is no mention whatsoever of money.

The philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, observed: “the limits of my language are the limits of my world.” He did not say anything about the limits of his money. In a succession of cases over the past twenty years or more, the Supreme Court has ruled that money equates to speech and that American citizens cannot be prevented from spending their money as they wish.

Not all politicians agree with this approach. Senator John McCain, President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, co-sponsored the 2002 Campaign Finance Reform Act which outlawed so-called ‘soft money’ and Political Action Committees. It took only a short time before the Supreme Court nailed the Act, opening the election floodgates to PACS and ultimately permitting virtually unlimited funding from corporations and trades unions through what are now called SUPERPACS. Not long ago, Mayor Bloomberg was reported to have spent more than $100 million on one of his campaigns for Mayor of New York City. He spent his own money, by the way. This enormous sum now pales into insignificance compared with the amounts which are now being contributed towards political campaigns.

The 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United has loosened pretty well all campaign finance restrictions. Now, individual million-dollar donors are pursued by both political parties. Wealthy people are backing national politics to an extent never seen before. This week, The Washington Post alleged that the Republican National Committee has raised the top donation tier to $1.34 million. The Democrats have joined the band wagon, seeking $1.6 million from individuals to support the Party’s convention, as well as Mrs Clinton’s campaign. What do the donors get in return? On the record, they receive exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the conventions, and special dinners.

What else do they get? Arguably, the gratitude of politicians to the uber-wealthy, gratitude which might convert into tax breaks, political career advancement, and introduction of policies to the advantage of the very few and the expense of others.

The Koch brothers have made significant financial contributions to libertarian and conservative think tanks and campaigns. They actively fund and support organizations that contribute significantly to Republican candidates, and that lobby against efforts to expand government's role in health care and combat global warming. The latter is hardly surprising as the basis of their wealth is in oil. By 2012, the brothers reportedly donated more than $100 million to dozens of free-market and advocacy organizations. What did they want in exchange? All we know is the party they support did not get into the White House but Congress was a different matter.

It is hard to assess the influence the new funding landscape will have on next year’s election. Perhaps things have not changed at all since the founding of the republic, except for the extraordinary higher amounts of money which will be applied to the fights both for the White House and for Congress. After all, the system of using political parties as vehicles to launder the buying and selling of government influence and decisions, not to mention political favors, is not new. It goes back to President Washington’s time. I suspect the patronage system would remain in place even if soft money was eliminated entirely from American politics and the amounts which an individual or corporation or trades union were fully regulated.

What I believe Americans should ask themselves is how the democratic ideal of equality is being served if a voter can spend anything he likes on supporting political candidates? The obvious link is the more a voter sends, the better is his chance of patronage. How is the much vaunted ideal of freedom enhanced by letting super-wealthy people have access to those who can help advance their political thoughts and desires to the detriment of those who cannot afford such influence? Is this a fair and just system?

To be more exact, are there circumstances where an individual would advance millions of dollars towards a political campaign because of altruism and love of what the party stood for? No, I didn’t think so. Money is not speech. Indeed one of the definitions of money is “to supply with money, hence bribery.” I am obliged to the Oxford English Dictionary for making my case.