"Money and Politics" is now "Politics IS Money"

Oh, sad, sad day. We are living what myself and so many people thought was going to happen--political money men are exactly who we thought they were--people seeking to spend as much money as they can to get their specific flavor of politics front-and-center.

And we have the old fogies on the Supreme Court to thank.

In what several "legal scholars" (meaning not me) have called "a disaster"--Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission (FEC)--also known as Citizens United--essentially opened the floodgates for what we're seeing in the current election cycle. Corporations, Unions, and Billionaires (CUBs, as I'll call them) running the show, while normal people get what the CUBs pay for--and not what the people ask for. Citizens United undid 100 years of campaign finance reform, and the consequences are rolling down like water.

MAJOR donors giving MILLIONS to "Super PACs" or other organizations that spend like madmen bashing other candidates in what is probably the most negative campaign of all time, with, in some markets, 50% of ads being negative!

The biggest three individuals in the GOP race are Frank L. Vandersloot (Romney), Sheldon Adelson (Gingrich) and Foster S. Friess (Santorum). These three are able to poor their 'hard-earned dollars' into candidates by filtering it through Super PACs which, regardless of any legal restrictions or statements by the candidates, are just puppets for the candidates. We truly live in the time of unlimited money in politics.

So, I'm the happy-fun guy, right? Well, it doesn't have to be like this. Think about it like this.

Money isn't speech--money enables speech to be louder. I have a freakishly loud natural speaking voice. Those that know me know that when I whisper, it registers as a 'minor seismic event.' However, just because my voice is naturally louder, or because I have the ability to use a megaphone, DOES NOT MEAN that I should have more speech than anyone else--just because I can get louder.

Same thing applies to money in politics--so you've got more money--fantastic. Is your opinion more important? Hell no. It just means that you can be louder--reach more people via a television or a radio. Freedom of speech can only be guaranteed FOR all if it is not dominated BY the few. Freedom of speech was mainly written in to protect people from people captured and held by the government NOT to allow you to say anything and everything you wanted, even if other people were lost in the fray.

The freedom of speech isn't about saying anything you want as much as you want--it's guaranteeing that you CAN say anything you want WHENEVER you want and not be thrown in jail--censored or punished.

But HERE'S where it gets complicated--I could almost live with unlimited donations (yeah, I know) IF reporting and 100% transparency was required. If the reporting was complete--as in every donation was publicly searchable--then guess what--that I could live with. BUT THAT'S A TERRIFYING REALITY. People with minority views would live in fear of societal (not legal/political) retribution for expressing those minority opinions--folks that want to give money to the KKK would have to be perfectly open about it. And yes, while there are instances when that might be nice (so you know who you don't like), things get complicated if you fire someone for their beliefs--then they might be able to sue.

I know that some people might say that "oh, well everyone is free to spend whatever they want." True, me, as a graduate student, has probably $4.36 to spend on the 2012 Election--MY ISSUES MATTER. Oh yeah, they actually don't.

Here's an example: some people are mute, yes. Do those people have less value because they can't speak? Do they lose their legal freedom of speech to a physical disability? Of course not. Behind this, though, lies the same idea--inability to spend millions of dollars on political campaigns should not disrupt the political process. And I can understand the legal argument--"well everyone still has one vote." But let's get real--the money that people are giving to campaigns isn't for ideology--it's for power. It's for influence. It's not based on merit, except for the merit of the smell of $100 bills (yum?).

SO, to REASONABLY attempt to protect everyone's ability to participate, and to keep things understandable and clear in the law, restrictions on the amount of money that we can put into politics make perfect sense. Americans like knowing the law--so if the law became something like "per year, you can give $100,000 to any political organization or candidate in total" is simple enough to be understood, and not restrictive of speech.

As I said, you have to buy-in to the idea that MONEY ISN'T SPEECH--but that what it really does is enable speech to be louder and more amplified--not substantively different.

I'm not saying that this is going to fix our democratic system--far from it. There is not magic bullet. But in reality, our (small-d) democratic (small-r) republic is a 'necessary drain'--we must 'suffer' through it because it is equitable and just. Always ending on a positive note.

And now, some quotes on democracy:

"Eh, screw it." --Winston Churchill

"The second to last place I'd like to live is in a democracy--the last place is California." --Mark Twain

"Don't ask me a damn question." --Jack Nicholson

And now, He-Man singing the 4 Non-Blondes' "What's Going On." Literally the funniest video of all time.