Citizens Divided On Citizens United: Campaign Finance Reform And The First Amendment
HAVE A LITTLE FAITH
In the wake of outcry over the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, I cannot help but wonder what has happened to the faith in ourselves as politically independent-minded voters. Fear of numerous big budget political propaganda funded by large corporations may be legitimate, but in my opinion such Hollywood productions should never be able to skew a voter who is confident in his or her own research and interpretations on the American politics which they live on a daily basis.
If we resign ourselves to the opinion that money wins elections, the democratic process may deteriorate to a point of no return. But I, as many people, remain skeptical of any political production which reeks of big corporate investment. Every endorser has an agenda, but in our information age money does not necessarily equal the greatest or most effective exposure. YouTube publishers and independent bloggers can reach a multitude of voters and insight tremendous influence with the smallest budgets. Even for targeting the voters who are less technologically savvy, simply walking precincts and making phone calls can be the greatest way to connect personally with voters. Corporations may have political influence due to mass funding, but how this influence is interpreted by voters is the true test. In my mind, money still cannot buy my vote.
My skepticism as an informed voter, as well as attention to the avenues a candidate is reaching me from, all influence my decision in casting a vote. As the number registered independent voters is on the rise, individual candidates are gaining more personal influence and those who vote the straight ticket are becoming rarer. The freedom of political speech is so important that any restraint on it could lead to the slippery slope of censorship, which both liberal and conservative voters have fought so hard to resist. In 1971 the Supreme Court defended “fuck the draft,” which reflected a national frustration and I am not willing to give up an iota of what we earned for political speech on that day. Justice Thomas continues to rightfully defend the decision in Citizens United by explaining that our First Amendment rights extend to groups whether they are corporations or crowds outside of the capital. Scaling back the protections of the First Amendment and defining corporations outside of the realm of a “group” is a dangerous trend.
The big budget political ads which are at the center of the Citizen’s United debate are meant to stir the minds of indolent voters and grab attention. Even if these ads are offensive in pouring money to wow voters into submission, I say get offended, that is if being offended means that you will take a stand on an issue and advocate for your view. As President Obama continues to discourage corporate spending on political speech, Democrats are responding by further criticizing Republican spending and finding non-monetary avenues to profess their cyclical distaste for big budget campaign spending. Based on the political climate, big budget corporate political speech will inevitably be poetic to one group and insulting to another. It is the nature, the ebb and flow of American politics, which at times creates two different courses of action in campaigning. Big spending versus the huge appeal of a low budget underdog is a fair fight that in every election cycle turns out unexpected results. The issue of whether more money will always win more elections should not be used to limit the First Amendment rights that are so essential to our democratic process. Americans, we are not feeble minded and we do not need laws to protect our sensibilities in politics from the monetary persuasion that we are privy to every single day.
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment!
You must sign in before you can comment.
