Our country’s mission is to make it possible and fair for everyone to attain the American dream, freedom; freedom to be successful, freedom to contribute to society in your chosen way, freedom of health and freedom of happiness and the pursuit thereof.
Borne out of this mission arose 2 components to our democratic system, the only components campaigns work for: votes and money, translation: success and the level playing field to pursue it. As I have written previously one party has coalesced around votes (Democrats) and one party around money (Republicans). This is why Democrats historically are always trying to expand the voter base by making it easier and more accessible to vote and the GOP historically tries to restrict access. Conversely Republicans are always trying to make campaign fundraising limitless, without restrictions and the Democrats are always trying to regulate it.
While one is enshrined in the constitution (votes) the other is not mentioned (money).
Important ideas to think about when contemplating this week’s Supreme Court 5-4 ruling on campaign finance, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Like it’s older sibling rulingCitizen’s United, the conservative (aka GOP) majority ruled that American voters should have less restrictions on the amount of money contributed to political campaigns, in a sense you should be able to flood as much money into a campaign as you are to stack a house with guns even though the same justices consistently vote for restrictions in voting; whether to forget illegal methods historically used in certain districts to discriminate, or limiting voting hours or making registration as odious as possible they seem to value money more than votes in our system.
As delicate a tightrope it is to balance these 2 pieces as I said before money in elections is not a constitutional issue. When our founding fathers drafted the constitution it was impossible to forsee the influence in communications and media money could buy. There was no internet, no television, no phones, smart or otherwise, no radio; just word of mouth, written word, newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets. So the influence of money is what should be calibrated as it’s influence changes.
The majority calls it speech, the first Ammendment. Money is not speech, it is power and it decimates the idea of one person one vote.
Think about it, less money means less time to fund raise, more time to govern, less influence by industry’s, political groups, and more time to think how to help their constituents and fellow countrymen and women better their lives and realize the American dream; and the constitution does not forbid that kind of tinkering.