Elections, money, speech and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's rulings on campaign financing is back in the news again.  As you may recall last winter in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission our Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision that begs any sense, never mind common sense, held that money is speech insofar as corporations and other wealthy entities that can not vote, can spend as much as they wish to influence elections.  This decision means that elections are clearly for sale.

Now in a very interesting case, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of an Arizona campaign finance law that provides for public financing for certain candidates when their opponent exceeds government-set campaign spending limits.  Unlike the previous case this law is not about money as speech but rather about leveling the playing field with public funds to offset the effects of big uncontrolled money.

Common Sense has long been concerned about the corrosive effects of campaign financing.  Increasingly election outcomes are determined by who has the most money.  The net effect is that elections are for sale.  Having our elected representatives obligated to large financial interest is clearly inconsistent with the notion that they should represent their electorate.  It begs common sense that someone who took campaign money from a large corporation, a wealthy individual, or a foreign government could somehow provide unbiased representation for the electorate.

Common Sense believes that the original Supreme Court decision was seriously wrong and that it undermines the very notion of a representative government.  It begs the obvious question of how can government be representative when entities that can not vote in an election are allowed to pour unlimited money into campaigns to elect candidates that will protect the interest of big money.  That such money corrupts, that such money abridges the interest of the common citizen, and that such money is not speech but rather immoral influence is simply common sense.

For elections to be representative it is essential that the spending playing field be reasonably level.  While Common Sense believes that money and speech are two very different things, it is none the less true that in today's world election speech cost money.  Limiting campaign spending for all candidates and by special interest in support of a candidate is just common sense.  Limiting spending by entities that can not vote in an election is likewise common sense.

Common Sense believes that campaign finance rules are essential to insure that elections reflect the interest of the electorate and not big money and outside interest.