Dan Balz has an article in the Washington Post under the
title: “The 'Sheldon Primary' is one reason Americans distrust the political
system.” Published on March 28, 2014, the article discusses an actual and current
situation pertaining to the consequences of the 2010 Supreme Court's ruling in
the case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
These are consequences that began to be felt immediately
after the ruling, and have gradually become more serious during the past four
years to the point that they now look as badly as a full-fledged horror story.
The latest chapter in the still unfolding drama is introduced by Dan Balz with
these words:
“Several prospective presidential candidates have gathered
for the opening round of what has been dubbed the 'Sheldon Primary' … [it] is
named for Sheldon Adelson who poured more than $92 million into the 2012
elections … He is now looking toward 2016, determined to find a candidate who
can win the presidency … Those looking at running would be happy to have that
kind of financial support. Some have come to meet privately with Adelson … this
new financing structure has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in
government and politicians. It is why so many Americans feel shut out of the
process … Many had a role in bringing the system to this point – the courts,
special interests, incredibly wealthy individuals with their own agendas.”
It is no exaggeration to call that development a horror
story with no end in sight.
The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on the premise
that money was the same as speech. It is now clear that this was a mistake. It
was a false premise from which the judges started their thinking process. There
is no doubt that the judges understand speech; this is their thing, it is what
they live for. But there is doubt they understand money as well because money
has never occupied a central position in their intellectual pursuit. If it did,
they would have known there is a big difference between money and speech, and
would most likely have ruled differently.
The American Constitution correctly gives free speech
absolute freedom because in a debate between two individuals (no matter whom
they are) or two camps (no matter their composition,) the contest is between
equals and between their ideas. The side which comes up with the set of ideas
that is most convincing wins the debate. And this makes it so that the outcome
of the contest depends on the merit engendered by the ideas, and not on some extraneous
element. Thus, there is the real need to see the debate run its course so as to
air all the ideas, and not see it cut off prematurely at some arbitrary point.
To do so would do injustice to one side or the other, which would defeat the
intent of the Constitution that guards against placing a limit on the freedom
of speech.
When it comes to the accumulation of money, however, the
merit that goes into this process is different from the merit that goes into
the process of generating ideas, and the two are too far apart to be equated.
Because ideas are generated by a process of pure thought, it is free of
constraints. Money, on the other hand, is generated by a more complicated
process where the essential requirement is to surmount obstacles during the
entire run.
And so, to allow speech to depend on the availability of
money is to make speech fit the template by which money is accumulated. More
specifically, when one side in the debate runs out of money – thus reflecting
the obstacles it was asked to surmount – it suffer an arbitrary end to the
debate and loses the contest. It loses not because it ran out of ideas of which
it may still have plenty, and brilliant ones for all we know, but because it
encountered the extraneous element of having to surmount difficult obstacles
while trying to accumulate the necessary amounts to remain in the race.
The above discussion should be convincing enough that money
and speech are two different things, and cannot be equated. Consequently, the
assertion that no limit can be placed on the amount of money spent where no
limit is placed on the amount of speech that can be made, is a false assertion
and must be rejected.