Are you actually familiar with this decision that gob-stops you so? The constitutional issue this hinged on was the fact that it placed restrictions on corporations. Bill Gates was free to do as he pleased. It had nothing to do with “wealth.”
And he was right. Here’s the First Amendment:
There is no basis for restricting political expression based on the entity from which it originates. Terr is right in that you’re begging the question. The constitutional question wasn’t “Should the wealthy have a greater voice?” That seems to be the issue you wish it were, and consequently you see the opposite position as one that provides the “pro” side of a debate you alone (well, not alone on this board) are conducting.
Terrible argument. The US is alone in the world in terms of campaign expenditure and arguments like this are intended to keep the population insular and ignorant. In Australia, a country with mandated voting and a parliamentary system (no direct campaign contributions to individuals), both major parties raised $130~m in AUD in from 2004-2005. In contrast, Kerry and Bush raised $880m USD.
No, they are Time Place and Manner restrictions. Congress may pass laws restricting someone from entering one’s house and screaming profanities at one in the middle of the night. Congress may pass laws prohibiting “obscene” language or nudity from being broadcast on public airwaves. Property remains intact: people may use obscene language or watch political documentaries within the comfort of their own home. Yet advertising is an invasion into an individual’s property. Most people would prefer to avoid them if doing so was plausible. Demanding that advertising be broadcast because it’s been paid for is not demanding the right to speak, it’s demanding the right to be heard and viewed.
NOW we are getting somewhere. The reality is, as you have JUST pointed out, that the ability to buy more and bigger megaphones (i.e., more access to whatever communications media is out there) gives whatever side has more of it a CONSIDERABLE advantage over the other side. So, in a nation where 1 percent of the population controls half the wealth, unlimited campaign spending means that the 1 percent have a MUCH louder voice than the other 99 percent. It is purest plutocracy.
What I would do is place reasonable limits on the campaign contributions of individuals, and not allow corporations, organizations, whatever, to contribute at all. Say $250 per person, per campaign, maximum. Chump change for the one percent, and I’m sure it would hurt their generous little hearts, but then, I have to allow people much less informed and interested than me to vote … that’s democracy! One man, one vote, not one dollar one vote.
When did the Supreme Court rule that the incorporation doctrine (no pun intended) applied to corporations? The 14th Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” – it doesn’t say anything about corporations. Can we not therefore conclude that the Bill of Rights only applies to the states with regards to persons?
I think it says Congress will make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Give me the details of what you think the law ought to be with regard to the nature of such contributions and I’ll be glad to provide my non-expert opinion on it.
And even if they didn’t, what are corporations other than a group of people? One person has a free speech right, but two people together can’t issue a joint statement?
True, it’s about PACS. It’s still a gateway to plutocracy. BTW, there IS a better solution to this problem, to my mind, than limiting campaign donations: we could simply make the economic playing field more even. If the wealthy controlled less of the nation’s wealth, and the middle class and lower class controlled more, we would not be in such imminent danger of becoming just another Third World plutocracy. Say, if the 1 percent only controlled 10 percent of the nation’s wealth, the ten percent only controlled 30 percent, the middle class controlled 50 percent, and the poor controlled just ten percent. Then there would be no issue about wealth and political power, everybody would have enough leverage to make their voices heard, except maybe the poor, whose welfare generally rides with the middle class’ welfare anyway.
CU didn’t decide against restrictions on campaign contributions per se. Elements of that remain in the McCain Feingold legislation and were not overturned. CU said you can’t isolate certain entities and restrict their political speech based on the nature of that entity. I strongly encourage people to actually read the ruling, since there seems to be endless incorrect assumptions about it.
I personally believe the Federal government has no business stifling political expression originating from any source, excluding the normal exceptions for things like inciting riots or revolution or other such “imminent lawless actions.” I am personally unafraid of others being able to express their opinions, even (gasp!) foreign governments.
Well I guess if you don’t think Congress being bought, lock stock and barrel, like the Montana state government was at the turn of the century, is a bad thing, you have no reason to fear. Me, I’m terrified of America turning into a Third World plutocracy.
Do you mean this question: “I think the law should (as it currently does) bar campaign contributions by foreign governments. Under your reading, that would be unconstitutional.”?
If so, yes, campaign contributions to candidates can be limited, both in amount and in source (no foreign contributions) just like they are today. That’s because money is not speech. It is not unconstitutional. Money transfers in the United States are regulated by Congress in all kinds of ways, and that doesn’t violate the First Amendment.
But speech is speech. No matter what source. Whether it is an individual, corporation, union, church or a foreign government, their speech is speech. Thus, if a corporation, or a foreign government, or a union, or an individual, want to conduct a media campaign for or against some issue, the first amendment protects that speech.