Free Speech! Offer Ends Soon!

As previously noted (Free speech isn’t free, June 9, 2010)

In every way, the first major problem with politics is money.

Primarily, our elected federal officials (we’ll stick to discussing the federal system for now) need considerable money for their election and re-election campaigns. In many cases, this means millions upon millions of dollars. In almost all campaigns, this money is donated by individuals and groups concerned with—and now invested in—the outcome of the election.

Two questions come to mind:

• What do the donors expect as a result of their contributions?

• What is the candidate willing to do to attract more donations?

Let’s see now, shall we take the high road or the low road?

Tell you what—I’m willing to bet that you can imagine the scenery along either route, so let’s just skip a bunch of superfluous prose. But I will put some spin on it:

Basically, what we uphold for our elected federal officials is a system of legalized bribery.

It is, perhaps, the fairest, most regulated, openly divested bribery system that humankind has yet devised—but it is still bribery. We have proudly institutionalized corruption and venality. (Aren’t we just the greatest country in the world?)

Unhappily, under a Constitution designed to guarantee rule by law and a one person-one vote system, this muddies things up considerably. The entire elective structure appears to be influenced by that freakish derangement of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Our toleration of this system says all that needs to be said about our political ideals and social morals.

So here’s what I propose —

 UGOB EDIT NOTE: The finance system that I had intended to outline here, having relevant similarities to the one mentioned below, appears to have been made moot by a federal appeals court decision this past Tuesday. The following excerpt from a Wednesday New York Times article summarizes the situation.

The Connecticut decision, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, struck down the “trigger provision” of the state’s campaign finance system, which allowed extra public funds for candidates running against opponents who do not participate in the system and who spend more than the system’s limits. The more the rich candidate spends, the more public money his or her opponent gets. Though the playing field is hardly even, the law does give nonwealthy candidates a fighting chance to compete.

The appeals court found that the campaign finance system violated the First Amendment rights of wealthy candidates. Never mind that nothing in the system prohibited such candidates from speaking or spending all they want; the court said that by awarding additional funds to opponents, the system caused a self-financed candidate to “shoulder a special and potentially significant burden if she chooses to exercise her First Amendment right to spend personal funds on her campaign.”

Here is the lesson I take from this: the First Amendment guarantees free speech, not equal speech. Or something. Maybe this will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Even so ...

Back to the drawing board.