Money vs Voters

This week by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of removing any limits to the amount of money a corporation or organization (like a labor union) can spend in support of a candidate running for federal office. This ruling strikes down 63 years of precedent set by previous supreme courts as well as severely weakening the McCain-Feingold Act, which set restrictions on the direct involvement large special interests could have on campaign finance.

Now, some might say the McCain-Feingold Act just resulted in the rise (beginning with in the 2000 Presidential Election) of what have come to be known as 527s, popularized to the point that they have been given their own verb, "swift-boated". McCain-Feingold, in a lot of people's opinions, has in no way addressed the issue it was supposed to address, money versus free speech. The efficacy of McCain-Feingold can be (and has been) debated to exhaustion, but at the very least, it was a proactive attempt to ensure the electoral process remains connected to the voters and not special interests.

The Supreme Court decision, according to some, has done nothing to significantly change the landscape of electoral politics, while others suggest the sky may be falling. The only certain reality of this decision is the fact that it has just become easier to influence an election with money and more difficult to hear the voice of the average voter. The argument could be made that corporations, unions and non-profit organizations are filled with voters too and making it easier for them to speak is a victory for free speech.

However, there is no way to know whether or not groups who might financially support a candidacy are actually speaking on behalf of the interests of that candidate's representative area or on behalf of a broader agenda. While, the voice of the voter in a particular election is ensured to be directly related to the interests of their area of representation. The ability for organizations to affect an election with endless amounts of money allow special interests, who may have absolutely no concern for a candidate's effect on their region, to have a significant hand in the futures of people thousands of miles away, all to further one particular cause.

Even more disturbing is the reality that the Supreme Court made this decision based on the case brought by a partisan organization, Citizens United, about whether or not they could disseminate ads to "On-Demand" cable services for their movie "Hilary: The Movie" during the 2008 Presidential Election as motion picture and not as a political advertisement, which fall under different regulation. A case, originally about whether or not a movie is treated like a motion picture or a political ad, has now opened the flood gates of financial influence on federal elections and potentially drowned out the voices of average people.

And once again, the fate of millions have been virtually decided by the few who decided to show up. This court decision, like many others will most likely go forward without many people paying any attention, that is until September, October and November come around and the Mid-term elections are front and center nationwide. However, what the now oblivious masses will discover at that time, is that the money train left the station while they weren't looking and there is nothing they can do to stop it.