For those who haven't already heard, there was a landmark decision reached today by the United States Supreme Court in the case Citizens United v. FEC.  What was being contested was whether or not corporations, unions, and other entities would be permitted to spend money in support or opposition of a given candidate and at what time.  After McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002, limits had been placed upon this type of political speech reinforcing a precendent going back to the Austin case from the late seventies.  The decision made today by a 5-4 majority essentially tears down these provisions and allows these actors to make such political statements as they desire.

I find myself very conflicted about this.  It is a ruling that I think is both correct in fact, but terrible in practice for what it will mean.  The First Amendment clearly guarantees freedom of speech in political matters, and to suggest that any entity be deprived that right seems injurious to the public will.  I understand and agree with that logic.  However, I also see that making this decision will have the functional impact of making our system even more afloat with money than it already has been.

Starting with the 2010 midterm elections, it is now inevitable that you will see corporations spending millions of dollars nationwide in their own campaigns to defeat opponents of their policies.  While these contributions will not be made to the candidates directly, it is frightfully easy to imagine how candidates could become surrogates for the forces seeking their retention or removal.

When we have a government spending trillions of dollars, investments of millions will be smart and easy for corporate donors, but impossible for individuals to match.  Even the most vigorous of campaigns cannot compete on an individual basis with this spending, and so our decisions will be invariably shaped by who spends most, not who is most right.  This is a consequence of free speech, and yet, when the airwaves are drowned out by the attack ads, I wonder how free speech has become if it must always be paid for so dearly.

While I agree with the ruling, I think this stresses the need for reform to get money out of politics.  Lawmakers should come together, for the protection of themselves and this republic, and institute fair rules for campaigns that end these ludicrous displays where we spend billions bashing each other.  I look at the English system as an example.  Everyone who can collect enough signatures is on the ballot; there are publicly aired debates, a campaign of substance, and it is all finished within six weeks.

I want people talking about ideas, and want to hear from candidates themselves.  I think most Americans feel likewise.  I hope that someone, somewhere, shows a willingness to give us that.  If not, I fear terribly, as those interests that can buy elections, I seriously doubt will be willing to stop at that point.  Be they left or right, having money in these quantities is not healthy for America.