Campaign finance and the Supreme Court - appalling

By a 5 4 majority the Supreme Court has undone the key provisions of the Mccain Feingold election and finance laws.  I hardly know where to start on this most appalling decision.

First, I would note that in a rare move the Supreme Court created this case by requiring the issue of money as speech and corporations as people to be argued.  While the court can take this kind of action it is rare and, I believe, but generally extremely ill advised as it allows the court to create law when the American public does not see a cause of action.

I believe that this travesty of the decision dramatically subverts the will of Congress and all of the American people.  Further, the decision is an affront to all common sense.

I would note, as representative Frank noted, that corporations are not people.  They are creations of state and Federal law.  As such they do not have the rights of people.

I would also note, that money is not speech.  While it is certainly true that money can be used to promote a particular political perspective it is not, in and of itself, speech.

The issue, I believe, is should an entity that cannot vote in an election be allowed to influence that election.  It is in the nature of democratic elections in a representative system that elected representatives should to the degree that it is practicable represent the views of the majority of the electorate as expressed in the election.  By allowing entities that cannot vote in the election to pour money into influencing that election the basic principle of representative democracy is abridged.

I believe, that the Supreme Court is a stunningly wrong in this decision.  They have said to large wealthy non voting entities that in our country political office, particularly the national political office, can be bought!  Given that the vast majority of Americans regard Congress as corrupt and ineffective this decision does not bode well for us as a society.

For my part I would suggest the following common sense rules for campaign funding.  First, only those who can vote in an election can contribute to candidates standing in the collection.  Second, media outlets, both print, radio, and television, be required to provide access to candidates on an equal footing.  In a case of radio and television, it should be noted, that the airways are public and licensed by government so the requirement does not in and of itself violate a property right.  While print media is a more difficult proposition, I believe that a reasonable fairness doctrine can be applied.

Common sense would argue that these provisions would dramatically reduce the cost of elections, insure that those standing for election are much less compromised by campaign fund raising, and extremist and special interest groups cannot inappropriately influence elections with money.