Fifty Years Ago, the Supreme Court Said Money Is Speech
>Last week was the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision enshrining the idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech. States and cities across the US are battling the rotten legacy of that decision.
Even though I think it’s a huge problem to consider pacs or donations speech, there are some legitimately thorny issues here. How do we define speech in a way that allows us to clamp down corruption but does not interfere with the free press? And if we do find a ruling or law that walks this line, do the rich simply find another avenue to exert influence?
Not that these fights don’t matter–shifting the balance of power towards the people and away from the rich is a good thing. But I have come to believe that extreme wealth is simply incompatible with democracy. When you have enough time and money you can always find a way to subvert the rule of law, and it’s usually in your interests to do so. But of course this leaves us with the question of how to destroy the political power of the wealthy in a political system that is now heavily rigged against us. I know what some people will say but I still haven’t seen a really good answer to this question.
Maybe syndicalism but labor power has been heavily restricted so this would require more willingness on the part of unions to break the law, and a much clearer and more radical vision for our political system. Right now I don’t see this has much popular support. And the time to build this support is limited as fascism tightens its hold and automation and AI threaten to undermine the bargaining power workers hold today.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying it, but “Money is Speech” is less of a problem than “Corporations are People” from Citizens United. Because the latter takes rights that this country historically reserves for humans and gives them to organizations (that are themselves composed of humans).
Simply reverse that, and you can restore limits on these organizations. Billionaires can still spend money how they are fit, but unless the billionaire does it all himself, at some point he will need an organization to do it, and that organization can have constraints.
This is a popular opinion but corporate personhood has a lot of implications beyond political activities which need to be considered.
For example, if corporations are not people, how does the first amendment apply to news outlets?
technocrit
LibertyLizard