Campaign finance is a very tricky subject. On one hand, no one should be able to buy an election, but on the other we have a nearly unrestricted right to free speech. I’ll be honest, I have trouble placing myself on one side of this issue over the other. One part of me says, “yes, people should be able to spend their money however they like because that’s their right to do so,” but the other part of me says, “no, why should someone who has a ton of money just be able to walk in at any time and spread their message.” Obviously, these two sides of me begin to form a cyclical argument that will never have a resolution, but it’s worth taking a look at each side to see what their cases are.
In the landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, we see that the money is free speech argument wins out. This is typically the conservative view of campaign finance. If I work for my money and earn a fair and honest living, I should be able to spend it as I see fit. I may be working long hours every day, so there’s no time for me to go and campaign for my favorite candidate. So, I can substitute my presence by paying someone else to go and campaign on my behalf. It’s my money and I have the right to do as I see fit with it. After all, even if there are restrictions, what’s to stop me from finding ways around those restrictions? The government can come in and propose loads of new regulations, but there will always be a way around them. What about corporations, labor unions, and super PACs? They already allow us to give as much as we want. Their only restrictions are that they can’t directly collaborate with a candidate’s campaign to better advertise on their behalf. But realistically, there’s always a back door for the two parties to communicate. And why should a business get a say? It’s not a person. Businesses don’t vote, although their employees do. Labor unions don’t vote, but their members do. Super PACs don’t vote, but the people who fund them do.
Okay, so what about the people on the side of the Federal Election Commission during the Supreme Court case? The money wasn’t the only thing that was restricted, it was also when the money could be spent. No “electioneering communication” could happen 30 days before a primary and 60 days from a general election. This is a clear restriction on free speech and something I could never support as a result.
But what about the money? Well, the bill that was struck down by
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. A major portion of this bill controlled how money could be raised and spent. My favorite part of this bill was the ban on foreign nationals and corporations donating to candidates. There should be no foreign contributions in an American election, and, thankfully, that is the one piece of the legislation that still stands today. The rest of the bill was struck down because the court argued it was a restriction of free speech. How does a company speak? Do all of its employees agree? Does everyone in the labor union agree? Probably not. But this isn’t the case for Super PACs. They all agree on the message and goal.
The last point I want to address is a candidate like Mayor Bloomberg who has literally billions of dollars to spend. It is unethical for him to impart his will by advertising almost everywhere. However, it is up to the American citizen at the same time to do their homework and not just accept the facts fed to them. But the realist in me knows most people won’t do that. I wouldn’t support it if/when Trump does it. If ordinary citizens wanted to jump in, they would clearly be not on the same playing field. In my opinion, if you choose to run, there should be restrictions on how much of your own money you may contribute to your campaign.
Overall, I’m leaning towards the conservative ideal here (shocker), but admittedly there is much more to learn about this topic. And I ask anyone who may read this, be open-minded and willing to explore every issue even if you think you’re a die-hard socialist or a true red-blooded Republican.
Be First to Comment