Supreme Court Considers More Money in Politics, Again
Newsweek reports the Supreme Court is considering dismantling what little remains of campaign finance restrictions, potentially allowing political parties to spend unlimited, direct funds. This comes after Citizens United v. FEC (2010) famously equated corporate money with free speech. One might ask, if money is speech, are those without it rendered mute? The argument for more money in politics is
always 'free speech.' The reality is, it further consolidates power among the wealthy and their proxies. Consider the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): In the 2022 cycle alone, AIPAC's PAC and super PAC spent a staggering $30,078,574 directly influencing elections (OpenSecrets.org). While this case concerns parties, the principle remains: more money means more leverage for
well-funded interests over the public. So, the Supreme Court, whose justices enjoy lifetime appointments, might just ensure that 'We the People' is increasingly rewritten as 'We the Donors.' How much 'freedom of speech' does one need before it's just plain buying policy? And how many more generations will pretend this isn't simply legalized bribery?