It’s Nice to Be Rich

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/opinion/28sat3.html?ref=opinion

It’s Nice to Be Rich

Published: June 28, 2008


Millionaires are already wildly overrepresented in Congress. The Supreme Court gave a big boost to rich candidates this week by striking down the “millionaire’s amendment,” which was designed to help level the playing field for candidates running against wealthy opponents.

snip//

This logic is flawed. The amendment does not infringe on anyone’s right to speak. Mr. Davis could say, or spend, as much as he wanted. It merely allowed his opponent to raise more money to finance his own campaign — and campaign speech. That clearly advances the goals of the First Amendment and ensures that more Americans, wealthy or not, can participate in the political process.

The ruling is conservative judicial activism of the first order. Congress passed the millionaire’s amendment to “level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth.” But the court baldly asserted that this is not “a legitimate government objective.”

Most of the McCain-Feingold law remains in effect. But the decision suggests that the court may now go on to strike down more central rules, such as the limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The majority showed disproportionate concern for the rights of the wealthy, disregard for the goal of making elections fairer and a lack of respect for Congress. That is a dangerous combination for a court charged with maintaining the health of America’s democracy.

[wurzel]

1. Money = speech. Another Supreme Court mess.

The Supreme Court ruled some twenty years ago, in favor of Buckley, that money is speech. Money is not speech it is property. Wouldn't you expect the Supreme Court of a Capitalist country to understand that?

[rurallib]

2. "Senate seats for sale. Get your seante seats right here"

How did Rome fall? I think there may be a parallel.

[Igel]

3. NYT misses the point, I think.

"The amendment does not infringe on anyone’s right to speak."

But it does.

Take Mr. Smith, millionaire candidate. He decides to pitch in $50 million of his cash--his 'right', since speech in this context requires funding. He has access to the money, so he should be allowed to speak: Same with a soapbox, tv station, or radio station--the right exists, its use dependent upon having access to the appropriate medium.

Take Mr. Jones, populist candidate struggling to pay off the loan he used to buy in 1999 Camry last year. When Mr. Smith pours money into his own campaign, Mr. Jones' is swamped with Smith ads. The amendment then says that Mr. Jones 1.5 million supporters can all donate far more money.

In principle, this equalizes the amount of speech. Jones speaks as much as Smith, if his supporters allow him to. The two groups have the same level of communal speech, in principle, given about the same number of supporters. What's the problem?

The problem is Mr. Marple, an ardent Smith supporter and marketing VP for MegaIndustries, Inc.; and his arch-enemy in the adjacent office, Mr. Garple, an ardent Jones supporter, development VP for MegaIndustries, Inc. Mr. Garple flaunts the check for $20k that he's sending in to Smith's campaign. He's "speaking" by using his money in this way. Mr. Marple tells him to STFU, but Mr. Garple responds by saying at least he *can* shut up, if he wants to--Mr. Marple can't speak, he's maxed out with his $200 donation, while he, Mr. Garple, can fairly well shout at $20k.

The amendment treated speech as a collective right, a group right, a right at inhered in a community. Mr. Smith's supporters as a group, Mr. Jones' supporters as a group. Is free speech a group right?

Just as with the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS said 'no', it's not a collective right. It's an individual right. That the NYT missed this is not surprising: They like the idea of the 2nd Amendment being a group right. I don't think the Constitution was ever intended to bestow group rights, to be honest. That's something that came along much later.

So while Mr. Smith can speak more than Mr. Jones because Smith has more money, and the law allows him to donate to himself, Smith's speaking doesn't substitute for Mr. Marple's right to speak, and doesn't augment Mr. Garple's. They all have equal liberties to speak, constrained only by the law as it stands. Since SCOTUS already said that political speech can be limited, the issue is whether it can be limited unevenly within a class--that of supporters.