LITIGATION BOUTIQUE
Criticism Concerning Supreme Court's Corporate Campaign Finance Decision
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations shall not be restricted as to the size of their financial contributions to campaigns. A primary consideration of the high court's decision was founded upon principles of free speech. However, the court erroneously reviewed free speech considerations of corporations in a vacuum, not considering their impact on the free speech of the multitude of political voices that do not belong to those of ultra large corporations.
Chief Justice Roberts said this in what could likely be considered an accurate summation of the overall reasoning of the court's decision. He said this, “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.”
The goal of the constitution is to provide protections and equal rights to all constituencies, in various regions, those making up various majorities, and those making up various minorities (not just racial minorities but minorities of any kind). And the First Amendment's free speech core objective is to protect all perspectives of politically based speech so as to provide checks on the government to prevent certain perspectives from drowning out other perspectives. This in turn, aids in the protection of rights for all and helps to promote the interests of all.
Justice Roberts is incorrect when he says that eradicating campaign contribution limits is in line with protecting free speech. His logic is that people should be able to freely give as giving to a cause is a form of speech and the First Amendment protects all speech. But that way of looking at the issue is flawed and shortsighted. It misses the boat on what the core principle of free speech is. And that core principle is to protect all viewpoints so that all viewpoints can be heard. But the reality is that the rich and powerful do not comprise a multitude of different viewpoints that are representative of society at large. They only comprise a small minority of viewpoints that are quite similar. They are similar because wealth brings with it very similar circumstances of which to face. Yet, by the so called protection of the "free speech" of a few, you are destroying the impact of free speech of a great many other viewpoints. Simply put, the rich corporations will drown out the voices of the great majority of people in this country and their concerns and interests, as a result.
So in essence, the ruling, while protecting the free speech of some, essentially destroys the free speech of most others by greatly lessening its impact, as those voices will never be heard over the ones belonging to fantastically wealthy corporations because of the lack of limits on campaign contributions. An individual has to have a lot of money to run for political office. And those politicians that have the benefit of unlimited campaign contributions from ultra wealthy corporations are very likely only going to represent those interests. And while that is not bad in and of itself, in real world terms, there will be no such thing as government representation of most contingents of society. Those politicians who choose to represent the other multitude of viewpoints not belonging to these ultra large corporations will forever be outspent and will have an incredibly difficult time winning office to wield power for their constituents. And that does not present a perpetual societal check on those viewpoints of the richest and most powerful few. As a result, those viewpoints of those rich and powerful few will take precedence over all others. And that is not at all congruent with the goal of free speech.