I am concerned about today's Supreme Court ruling freeing limitations on corporate spending in federal campaigns and subsequently state and local campaigns as well (see newspaper articles linked above). While I acknowledge one can make a strict interpretation argument of first amendment rights to extend to any type of speech by any type of speaker, I think such an argument is dangerously flawed. Clearly the speech of corporations and unions is different than that of other advocacy groups and churches is different than that of individuals. Business, churches, advocacy groups and individuals are treated differently in many aspects of law (for example, corporations don't vote in elections).
Ultimately our laws are meant to enforce the will of the many while protecting the rights of the few. With a relatively unchecked flow of big money into campaigns, both the will of the many and the rights of many of the few will be compromised.
Our government is already hamstrung by the influence of moneyed interest as evidenced by the most recent efforts at healthcare reform and financial reform. It is no surprise that a healthcare reform bill written by legislators that have received millions of dollars in funding from health insurers transfers large public subsidies to those insurers with almost no cost containment measures.
Similarly it is not surprising that large, rapid Wall Street bailouts have been followed up with (to-date) minimal regulatory changes in a setting where corporate Democrats with firm ties to the financial industry run President Obama's economic team and the committees charged with financial industry oversight in Congress.
These two examples refer to a government controlled by the historically less-business friendly Democratic party IN the setting of McCain-Feingold. What will happen in the post-McCain-Feingold world with relatively unchecked interested electioneering? How much more beholden will our legislators and elected leaders be to moneyed interests?
While I believe it is theoretically possible for some citizens to sort through a tsunami of moneyed interest propaganda, I think it is improbable and therefore dangerous to unleash that tsunami. It is also possible to carry the biggest gun and remain safe in a lawless town, but society works to avoid such undesirable situations while maintaining freedoms.
I've long argued that if we want true healthcare (and health) reform, first we must pursue true campaign finance reform, freeing our legislators from moneyed interests. Unfortunately, I think we've moved in the wrong direction today.
