The ramifications of upholding Citizens United
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:12 am
Today The Supreme Court re-affirmed the overturning of the United States District Court decision in the case of of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.
What the Court has decided, in effect, is that free speech is constrained by not allowing unlimited access to paid speech. As a democratic society, Americans need to ask what is meant by ‘free speech’ and what are the ramifications for our democracy when ‘free speech’ costs money.
Money is the gateway drug of corruption. What happens to the integrity of a Congressman in our current political environment? They begin by convincing people with money that their ideas are the best, and end by convincing themselves that people with money have the best ideas. The result is politicians whose principles and votes can turn on a dime, or more accurately, several million of them.
Politicians have to spend more and more time raising money for their message, and court Super PACs to support their ideas. They have become the servants, not of what they believe are the best ideas, but the COST of disseminating ideas. Most politicians spend every spare moment asking someone they know, someone they don’t know, or someone they can’t stand for money. There is less and less time to spent on drafting or reading legislation, and less and less time for listening to their constituents, especially when those constituents don’t happen to have a checkbook in their hands.
What kind of political rhetoric is favored in this environment? If you’re going to ask for more and more money, your cause has to be more and more urgent. Your supporters must not only be drawn to your ideas, but live in fear of your opponents. Extremists, not moderates, are the ones that benefit in this climate. You’re going to need to demonize the other side, and convince your supporters that not only is the other side wrong, they are evil, that God is on your side and the very future of Western Civilization hangs in the balance of your struggle.
Sound familiar?
Consider this description of a modern politician’s modus operandi : “...never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;”
A political consultant's advice for winning the Primaries? No, that was the United States Office of Strategic Services' evaluation of Adolf Hitler.
How has this evolution of the political process benefited representative government? Do we see better policies being formulated, better legislation being enacted? On the contrary, we see gridlock, with any hope of consensus of compromise hijacked by extremists.
The vast majority of American people feel this happening.The percentage of voters approving Congressional job performance is in the low teens, disapproval ratings are above 80 per cent.
But ask a member of Congress and you’ll find Democrats and Republicans in lockstep agreement about both the problem and the solution: “Our side would love to get things done, but the other side is blocking us at every turn. So if you just give us more money, we can elect enough members to override their obstructionism. Of course, the enemy is very well organized, so you will have to give us a lot more money.”
And so our dysfunctional political system is stuck in the middle of a giant negative feedback loop. The more money required to run, the more the system favors extreme candidates. The more extreme the candidates, the less room there is for compromise. The less room there is for compromise The less gets done. The less that gets done, the greater the crisis. The greater the crisis, the more extreme the candidates. Round and round we go.
Like blind idiots we feed the beast. We throw more money at a problem that is caused by too much money. The fundraisers tell us if they only had a little more gasoline they could put out the fire. We are in a political arms race that results, not in better government, but mutually assured destruction. Nothing gets done.
The problem is not inherent in the ideology of either party. The problem is systemic, and it begins with unlimited PAC money. So what's the solution?
What the Court has decided, in effect, is that free speech is constrained by not allowing unlimited access to paid speech. As a democratic society, Americans need to ask what is meant by ‘free speech’ and what are the ramifications for our democracy when ‘free speech’ costs money.
Money is the gateway drug of corruption. What happens to the integrity of a Congressman in our current political environment? They begin by convincing people with money that their ideas are the best, and end by convincing themselves that people with money have the best ideas. The result is politicians whose principles and votes can turn on a dime, or more accurately, several million of them.
Politicians have to spend more and more time raising money for their message, and court Super PACs to support their ideas. They have become the servants, not of what they believe are the best ideas, but the COST of disseminating ideas. Most politicians spend every spare moment asking someone they know, someone they don’t know, or someone they can’t stand for money. There is less and less time to spent on drafting or reading legislation, and less and less time for listening to their constituents, especially when those constituents don’t happen to have a checkbook in their hands.
What kind of political rhetoric is favored in this environment? If you’re going to ask for more and more money, your cause has to be more and more urgent. Your supporters must not only be drawn to your ideas, but live in fear of your opponents. Extremists, not moderates, are the ones that benefit in this climate. You’re going to need to demonize the other side, and convince your supporters that not only is the other side wrong, they are evil, that God is on your side and the very future of Western Civilization hangs in the balance of your struggle.
Sound familiar?
Consider this description of a modern politician’s modus operandi : “...never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;”
A political consultant's advice for winning the Primaries? No, that was the United States Office of Strategic Services' evaluation of Adolf Hitler.
How has this evolution of the political process benefited representative government? Do we see better policies being formulated, better legislation being enacted? On the contrary, we see gridlock, with any hope of consensus of compromise hijacked by extremists.
The vast majority of American people feel this happening.The percentage of voters approving Congressional job performance is in the low teens, disapproval ratings are above 80 per cent.
But ask a member of Congress and you’ll find Democrats and Republicans in lockstep agreement about both the problem and the solution: “Our side would love to get things done, but the other side is blocking us at every turn. So if you just give us more money, we can elect enough members to override their obstructionism. Of course, the enemy is very well organized, so you will have to give us a lot more money.”
And so our dysfunctional political system is stuck in the middle of a giant negative feedback loop. The more money required to run, the more the system favors extreme candidates. The more extreme the candidates, the less room there is for compromise. The less room there is for compromise The less gets done. The less that gets done, the greater the crisis. The greater the crisis, the more extreme the candidates. Round and round we go.
Like blind idiots we feed the beast. We throw more money at a problem that is caused by too much money. The fundraisers tell us if they only had a little more gasoline they could put out the fire. We are in a political arms race that results, not in better government, but mutually assured destruction. Nothing gets done.
The problem is not inherent in the ideology of either party. The problem is systemic, and it begins with unlimited PAC money. So what's the solution?