Citizens United

by

Money Talks . . . Again

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.

by

Angry Money

While we stand appalled at the outright usurpation of power by the military in Egypt, we are witnessing a more gradual wresting of power by the angry money of the world’s exemplar of democracy. We can shake our heads at the arrogance of the Egyptian generals, but we should not be surprised that the strongmen of American politics, those who write the checks, are assuming a similar take-no-prisoners approach to the elections of 2012.

Election-year politics usually takes the tone of “anything you can do I can do better,” but the intensity of the outrage has been building over the past year of budget wrangling in Congress. Last summer’s debacle over raising the deficit level showed the deadly resolve of conservatives to refuse any deal that hinted of raising revenue by any name.  Legislators have always declared their opposition to taxes on the threshold of an election, but their midterm show of principle extended beyond any campaign promises. It showed ruthless anger.

The anger is directed at a President who played his cards early by driving through Congress the Affordable Health Care Act, by bailing out the auto industry, and by welcoming Muslim peoples to the international discussion table.  These initiatives so alarmed the monied interests (activists like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and Charles Simmons, Texas billionaire) that they have poured unprecedented millions into the legalized PAC campaigns unleashed by the Citizens United case.

It is remarkable how such potent financiers keep a low profile in this campaign. They shy away from public pronouncements, because they have sublimated their anger with money. They are joined by other ruthless campaign bank-rollers who are even more successful at dodging the press.  Their anonymity is their strength, because no one wants to believe that a few billionaires are selecting the next President. In fact, when the Obama campaign published a list of the top Republican donors, it sent Rep. Mitch McConnell into a frenzy, claiming that naming these donors was tantamount to an attack on free speech:

The Courts have said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to muzzle free speech, so the President himself will seek to go around it by attempting to change the First Amendment (New York Times, June 17, 2012).

Whereas the Egyptian military made a brazen grab for power in public, the American magnates want to keep their names out of the headlines. But their anger is projected onto their Congressional surrogates, the Mitch McConnells and the John Boehners, who make politics personal.   The anger of the campaign has been amplified by the relentless pressure of money flowing in from powers-behind-the-throne.

That politicians are complicit mouthpieces of the wealthy is evident by the fact that no one but John McCain is willing to stand up to them in an election year. Although McCain was less vocal about campaign financing during his run for the presidency, he has gone on the record against the disproportionate contributions of Sheldon Adelson, asserting that he is channeling money from his foreign enterprises into the Republican campaign.  Lately he has rehabilitated his conscience and returned to his role as gadfly of the Senate, but even his expedient return is refreshing.

Frankly there are a lot of reasons for anger when so many are unemployed and the economy proves so intractable or subject to the politics of Europe.  Perhaps finding a scapegoat for the interminable recession is what an election is all about. As President Truman eloquently acknowledged, “The buck stops here.”

But an election should not be about channeling the anger of the ruthless monied interests of this country.  The tidal wave of political advertising and the rising volume of political rhetoric should not be at the whim of the wealthy.  We should be entitled to our own anger, not the displaced fury of billionaires.

We can vote our anger, and we often do.  But when we hear the high-pitched indignation and the personal attacks that inevitably rise in the campaign, remember the “angry money,” and don’t let them usurp power by channeling their anger through you and their paid assassins.