When Money Is Speech, Speech Is Not Free

via ReclaimDemocracy!:



When Money Is Speech, Speech Is Not Free
Supreme Court majority says candidates must have unfettered right to turn personal wealth into political advantage


By Jeff Milchen
First published July 8, 2008 in the Baltimore Sun
(This edit expands on the original version for newspapers)



Building atop the rotten foundation it laid three decades ago, the Supreme Court (Federal Election Commission v Davis) has struck down the “Millionaires' Amendment,” a federal law that helped keep Congressional elections competitive when a candidate funded their own campaign with a personal fortune. The law could have applied to 28 or more races this year.

The Court's ruling repeatedly references its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which wrote between the lines of the First Amendment passage, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” to declare spending money to influence elections is constitutionally-protected free speech.

Since then, the Justices have struck down numerous laws designed to limit the power of money over election outcomes (and ballot initiatives).

What's shocking about the Supreme Court's opinion in Davis, however, is the disputed 2002 Millionaires' Amendment to the McCain-Feingold Bill made no attempt to limit spending. To the contrary, it merely enabled candidates competing against a free-spending millionaire or billionaire to raise more money. According to the Court's own logic, this simply enabled more “speech.”

The amendment allowed House candidates whose opponents spent $350,000 or more in personal funds to accept up to three times the current $2,300 per-donor limit (but only until their spending equaled that of the self-funding candidate). The law also allowed for raising contribution limits to in U.S. Senate races, with the threshold varying based on state population. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/davis_fec_millionaires_amendment.php

:kick:

Though, I'm sure, they will still refer to it as democracy.

The president should now be determined through an eBay bid system.

Rather than them wasting money on ads, they should all just present bids to the public. "Make me president and I'll give you $2,000!"

"No, I'll give you $2,100!"

No need for these pesky elections.