Once again we are hearing the argument that campaign donations are a form of free speech in the case currently before the Supreme Court, McCutcheon vs. the Federal Elections Commission. Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, contends that the cap on contributions he makes to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees violates his rights as a citizen to speak freely in the battle for the vote.

I can not say how much this concept of free speech offends me. I have never given more than $100 to a political cause, because of my modest means, and I resent the citizen who is unhappy that he can not exert more than a thousand times my influence, because of his wealth.  This form of influence is neither free nor speech.

I can’t decide which claim offends me more: that money is speech or that its influence show go unfettered. The expression “money talks” is extremely cynical, suggesting that what you say is never accorded the same respect given to the money that changes hands when you say it.  It is the subtext of every election, as the media calculates what they call the “war chest” of one candidate over another. It is as if the political message of every candidate should be “I disagree, and I have money.” This is class warfare in its most naked form.

The claim that money’s influence should not be curtailed is equally abhorrent.  The power that the Koch brothers exert through political action committees and campaigns against moderate candidates is terrifying.  The potential influence of one Nevada billionaire on the previous Presidential election was unnerving. The seamless passage of Congressional representatives from pubic servant to influence peddler in Washington threatens the integrity of the government.  All this is done under the existing campaign and lobbying laws. And we want to extend the power of wealth in the political process?

I can not blame those who have money, because they are expected to use their resources to their advantage. I do blame the Supreme Court for “Citizens United,” and I blame democratically elected officials who cater only to their wealthiest supporters. In my naivete I have expected elected representatives to protect the interests of their most vulnerable citizens against those who disregard those interests.  That is what government is designed to do: defend the rights of the less powerful.  The rights of the powerful should receive a lot less obeisance, especially from those who benefit from their largesse.

What really gets me is the image of wealth degrading the value of discourse. It means that the most articulate and impassioned defense of a cause can be silenced by a backroom transaction. It means that no one will bargain in good faith, because they have already been bought.  It means that no one will speak their mind for fear of offending wealthy contributors. It means that words are cheap, even words that stand for something.

“Money talks” may be a commonplace of our society, but I can never hear it without cringing.  There is nothing articulate or inspiring in the exchange of wealth, except to those who make it so. Those who would use wealth to amplify and leverage their free speech should be restrained from domination, if only to preserve the meaning of “free” and the meaning of “speech.” Money has no legitimate claim on either of those words.