Speech in America Now Has a Price Tag—and It Could Soon be Too Expensive for Folks Like Us

On April 2nd the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) put a price tag on “free speech”—enabling a few super rich individuals to speak and be heard while muffling the voices of millions of Americans like you and me. The so-called McCutcheon case closes the loop on a line of SCOTUS decisions that could eventually move our nation out of the community of democracy and into the dark reaches where the rich and powerful—plutocrats— will decide America’s future.

The five Supreme Court Justices who prevailed in the McCutcheon decision effectively declared that super rich individuals can dump as much as $3.5 million directly into political campaigns and committees in every election cycle.

Why do they want to spend so much money to influence the outcome of an election? Because there is much more money to be made if government is compliant and too small to enforce rules. Dysfunctional government enables the big banks and Wall Street to make stock purchases in mere nanoseconds and resell at higher prices to those without that advantage.  Who will regulate this corruption when the 1% are able to buy off all the politicians?

If you think this doesn’t affect your life, think again. The eventual consequences will depend upon people like us. Some will become discouraged and demoralized and drop out of the political process. But, that’s what the other side—the 1%— wants. If the rest of us are willing to fight to win our democracy back, we can redirect the course.

The proponents of big money in politics cloak themselves as advocates of “free speech,” but they mean something far different than that term implies for the average citizen. They want to reinforce the plutocracy represented in the widest economic disparity in our nation’s history. The more they can frustrate the democratic process, to make it seem impossible for the average person to make a real difference, the deeper and wider the gap will become in our nation’s soul. If they succeed, they are sure to diminish public commitments to infrastructure, divert our efforts to protect our environmental treasures like the Chesapeake Bay, and dilute availability of quality education for our children. All the while, they will be loosening the few safeguards we have to protect our democratic institutions.

Only four years ago, the same set of Supreme Court justices issued the Citizens United opinion, setting the stage for McCutcheon. Citizens United opened the spigot for unlimited “dark money” to flow into politics through “social action” committees that provide a shroud of secrecy for donors who do not want to be publicly associated with the goals that these committees pursue.

It was no surprise that the 2012 presidential election that followed set a record for political spending—$6 billion! How much more dark money will flow into the mid term election this year? Certainly as much. Some are predicting the 2016 presidential race will be twice as expensive as four years earlier.

Using money to undermine democracy is not a new phenomenon. Some states still have “ballot access fees” that effectively protect incumbents against challenges by the average person. When I ran for Congress in Florida in 1996, for instance, I was required to either pay $10,020 or undertake the expense of securing 5,000 signatures from residents of the district. And, if I fell short of that 5,000-signature mark, I would have to pay the ballot access fee anyway. Maryland has a more modest $150 fee; in California, it is $1,000; in Georgia it was $4,000 in 1996 (don’t know what it is now).

I sued the state of Florida to contest this unfair requirement. Although my attorney and I tried mightily to get this case before the Supreme Court, it was remanded back to Florida’s state courts which, not surprisingly, ruled to dismiss my suit. My efforts earned a footnote in history because the court precedent my lawsuit created in 1998 directly contradicted underscored the hypocrisy and cynicism of the rationale behind landmark Supreme Court decision in Gore Vs. Bush that stopped an election recount in Florida and gave the 2000 election to George Bush. Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor confessed not too long ago that this was the worst decision she ever participated in. Nevertheless, this SCOTUS did not seem troubled by the inconsistency of its decision.

Despite all that, I’m not about to walk away from my personal commitment to redirect our politics back to what was envisioned by the founders: a government of the people, by the people and for the people. I want to represent the citizens who still hold that vision dear.