Buckley v. Valeo: Court Activism at its Finest
LEIGH POMEROY
This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in support of campaign finance controls, arguments that directly challenge the Court's infamous 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision. Buckley reinforces the legal fallacy that money in politics is an exercise of free speech and is therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.
Any fourth grader exercising the law of common sense would say otherwise. The argument is very simple: Place two three-year-olds in front of the Supreme Court (average age 65). One belongs to a family with wealth of $100 million. The other comes from a family whose net worth is only $10,000. Assuming both attain voting age and their family circumstances change little, which one will have a greater chance of influencing the political process?
Intuitively, money does not equal free speech, for money has the ability of amplifying one voice over another. While both of our subjects may speak at the same volume and with the same intellectual capacity into the microphone, the one with more money can buy more amplifiers, more speaker systems, more media outlets.
In other words, what starts as equal speech is not broadcast equally.
Those who rail against court activism should be up in arms about Buckley v. Valeo, because here indeed is where the Court has grossly overstepped its bounds.
Speech is an ability that well over 99% of us enjoy. And even among those who cannot physically speak, many can communicate in other modalities. Speech and communication are digital. One either can or cannot. It is off or on, zero or one.
Money, however, is analog. It exists in degrees. The more one has of it, the more one can purchase, be those acquisitions cars, houses, vacations, or political influence.
Put simply, money and speech are de facto not the same, and as soon as our legal and political systems de jure recognize this, the people of this country will be able to turn the ship of state away from its current oligarchical actuality and back towards true democracy.
This week the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in support of campaign finance controls, arguments that directly challenge the Court's infamous 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision. Buckley reinforces the legal fallacy that money in politics is an exercise of free speech and is therefore protected by the 1st Amendment.
Any fourth grader exercising the law of common sense would say otherwise. The argument is very simple: Place two three-year-olds in front of the Supreme Court (average age 65). One belongs to a family with wealth of $100 million. The other comes from a family whose net worth is only $10,000. Assuming both attain voting age and their family circumstances change little, which one will have a greater chance of influencing the political process?
Intuitively, money does not equal free speech, for money has the ability of amplifying one voice over another. While both of our subjects may speak at the same volume and with the same intellectual capacity into the microphone, the one with more money can buy more amplifiers, more speaker systems, more media outlets.
In other words, what starts as equal speech is not broadcast equally.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.All the 1st Amendment guarantees is that "free speech" shall not be abridged. It says nothing about the amplification thereof, either for or against.
Those who rail against court activism should be up in arms about Buckley v. Valeo, because here indeed is where the Court has grossly overstepped its bounds.
Speech is an ability that well over 99% of us enjoy. And even among those who cannot physically speak, many can communicate in other modalities. Speech and communication are digital. One either can or cannot. It is off or on, zero or one.
Money, however, is analog. It exists in degrees. The more one has of it, the more one can purchase, be those acquisitions cars, houses, vacations, or political influence.
Put simply, money and speech are de facto not the same, and as soon as our legal and political systems de jure recognize this, the people of this country will be able to turn the ship of state away from its current oligarchical actuality and back towards true democracy.
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home