Power corrupts, not money

Much has been written and spoken throughout the media these past few days lamenting the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money in exercising their right to free speech. The vast majority of those criticisms have focused exclusively on the effects of the decision, frequently mentioning that it is "bad for democracy."

However, the Supreme Court's duty is to rule on the Constitutionality of a case, not on which outcome the public (or President) deems "best" or most pleasing. I applaud the Court for doing just that.

People may have opinions about how good or bad the effects of the ruling will be for the nation's electoral system, but until they can show how the Supreme Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, their arguments hold no water.

Last night the President called out the Supreme Court in his SOTU address – a move which I found in poor taste. Once again, we had another member of government opposing the ruling based solely on the grounds of its alleged effects. A Constitutional scholar such as President Obama should know the Supreme Court's sole duty of interpreting the Constitution, not making law based on desired outcomes.

Worse yet, the President stated that the ruling "will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Again, even if that were the case, the President has made no attempt to show that that Court's ruling was not in line with the Constitution, that the First Amendment would have been better protected by a different ruling. But as it turns out, the President was wrong on that assertion anyway. Justice Alito justifiably was miffed at the President's lack of understanding of the case, and the effects of the ruling.

The few critics who actually do try to attack the Court's ruling on Constitutional grounds seem to take issue with the treatment of corporations as "citizens." What they are implying is that rights that apply to a single citizen should not apply to groups of citizens. But it seems to me that any rights we grant to the individual should also apply to a group of collective individuals. If that is not the case, then the floodgates are open to deny the Bill of Rights to every group entity in existence. Good-bye to due process, trial by jury, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That of course is the ultimate extrapolation if we are to deny individual rights – the Bill of Rights – to groups of individuals such as corporations.

In the end, the effects of the ruling boil down to this: Are you more comfortable with corporations, unions, and other groups having the power to freely spend money to speak in the marketplace of ideas and opinions, or with having the government retain the power of who can say what, when, and where with regards to political speech? I know where I fall.

What the Court struck down was a section of the 2002 McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Now I ask you this: Has political campaigning gotten better, or worse, since 2002? I believe it's hard to argue things have gotten better. The point is, for two hundred years prior to 2002, campaigns were conducted without tragically ending the republic. Sure, they may frequently leave a bad taste in our mouths; indeed even turn us "off" to politics at times. But they sky did not fall then, and it won't now.

The real problem with money in politics is that government has too much power, thus encouraging the very lobbying and influence peddling we all despise. As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

As long as the American people continue to vote in big government career politicians beholden to special interests, we will continue to reap what we sew. It's time to wake up and realize there are alternatives.