The Supreme Court Has Done a Disservice to America by Striking Down Campaign Contribution Limits
This past April, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas voted to strike down campaign contribution limits. Chief Justice Roberts stated: ". . . we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate . . . . They instead intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'"
While I respect Chief Justice Roberts' right to his opinion, there is certainly justification for limits on campaign contributions. Campaign finance laws were enacted to protect us from being bought and paid for by the few hundred mega-rich who garner favor, and let's face it, favors, from the people they pay to get elected. Closing our eyes to quid pro quo corruption, or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, doesn't make it go away. Corruption will not end with the end of campaign contribution limits. It will only grow as the rich pour money into the coffers of people running for office to uphold their interests, not the middle class, and certainly not those at poverty level.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Justice Breyer made no bones about his strong disapproval by stating at the conclusion of his dissent: "The result, as I said at the outset, is a decision that substitutes judges' understandings of how the political process works for the understanding of Congress; that fails to recognize the difference between influence resting upon public opinion and influence bought by money alone; that overturns key precedent; that creates huge loopholes in the law; and that undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform." His words are absolutely true. This ruling will open the door for more and more reform until eventually elections will simply be a farce, and only those with the most money will have a political voice. You can read the decision and dissent here.
When Shawn McCutcheon, a major Republican Party donor, said, "Ensuring that citizens are able to contribute to multiple candidates or causes who share their views only provides further support to a system in which 'We the People' hold the ultimate reins of power," he wasn't kidding. The problem with that statement is "We the People" are not billionaires or even millionaires. The majority of "We the People" are everyday working people trying to make a living and feed our families. What will happen to our voice? What power can we possibly hold in electing people that will uphold our interests?
Well, for starters, educate yourselves before you vote. Find out who gave what to whom and how much. If you know the monkey on the backs of the people that are put into office, it won't come as a surprise when they do things contrary to your interests and the interests of every other hardworking American. You will know why.
;)
