- I don't think it controversial to say that much of what ills the government of the United States is caused by money. What may be controversial is that I do not think giving money is an expression of free speech, rather I think the act of giving money is an emolument. Limiting the amount of money a corporation, committee, or individual gives to an elected official is not an infringement on free speech. Common sense tells us this and yet in 1990 SCOTUS in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission said otherwise. In order to make a more perfect union, as Madison wrote in the preamble to the Constitution, I think we need clear definition that giving of money to elected officials in our republic is an emolument rather than an express of free speech.#
- The difference between money and speech lies in how much the person receiving either needs what is offered. Today elected officials, particularly federal officials, need a lot of money. The amounts of money needed by a person to be elected to office makes it something more than speech because it enables a smaller number of people to influence the person elected. One's need of money and the receipt of that money is a quid pro quo; the giver of the money expects something in return and that expectation makes the giving of money an emolument. #
In Federalist 39 James Madison wrote, "If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."
#
- The founders knew how emoluments could lead to corruption because they lived in a time when it was common practice for foreign countries to gain favor from monarchs by gift giving. Emoluments are not given as an act of generosity, they are given with the expectation of something in return. If you think about it, you could say that emoluments, the giving of gifts of large sums of money, is simply capitalism at work, and here in lies the circumstances we find ourselves in today. #
- We in the United States, so accustomed to our highly capitalistic society, have become numb to the corrosive nature of money and thus think little of emoluments. If we were to write the Constitution today we might not even include emolument clauses in it because they have become such a part of everyday life. The other side of that coin, however, is that everyone in our capitalistic society knows full well that when one person or one committee or one corporation writes a check for thousands, hundreds of thousands or more dollars to a politician it is done with the expectation of something in return. Enough money from a small group of people gains more influence than a citizen could ever hope to gain through exercising their right to free speech. Isn't this how elected officials pretty much ignore what their constituents say?#
Why is it that emoluments from "any King, Prince, or foreign State" is worse than emoluments from citizens, corporations, or Political Action Committees?
#
- Today, like many things, many tend to take a literal view of corruption and emoluments. Huge election donations and lobbying come with expectations that effectively buy votes, but we don't think of this as corruption, at least not legally. However, I don't know how anyone can deny that huge part of our lack of trust in the institutions of government, or media (journalism), or medicine, is not due in large part to an awareness of how much influence on decisions is being bought. The growing lack of trust in government is the corrosion (corruption) of the Republic in plain sight. (Further, if you think about it, much of the lack of trust in Biden or Trump is due to money!)#
- The founders of the United States knew full well the affect emoluments can have on a republic, which is why they included clauses in the Constitution to limit that affect. Unfortunately, the ideology of originalism says that literal words, not the meaning or intent, only matters. (Taken to its logical conclusion, originalism can mean that Supreme Court Justices could be replaced by AI.) Originalists will say, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 only has the words "from any King, Prince, or foreign State" and there is no such prohibition of emoluments given from citizens of the United States, even if the very thing that clause was intended to prevent, which is the corruption of the government through quid pro quo, is what is happening.#
- Over the course of history we have accepted precedent that limits can be placed on free speech when it does harm to others. In my opinion, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision makes that precedent murkier because it expands speech to spending money. #
- The problem with equating money to speech is that money corrupts. Consider, why is it that there is such lack in trust with news organizations? We know that all of the major news organizations are owned by corporations and we know that corporations primary objective is to make their owners money. Consequently most people expect news organizations to bias their reporting toward what makes money; whether or not this true doesn't matter, the widely held perception corrupts trust in news organizations. #
- Every institution and its participants in the United States uses money, and perception exists that the institutions and participants will do anything for more money. A good amount of the lack of trust with institutions is caused by money, and the lack of trust in government is corroding democracy. Nearly everyone knows that lobbyists give money to politicians to get something back, this is a quid pro quo that common sense tells us is corrosive. Like rusty pipes, corrosion left unchecked leads to failure, in this cause failure of democracy.#
- The founders of the United States knew of the corrosive nature of purchasing favor from elected officials, although they appeared most concerned about quid pro quo with foreign governments. The Constitution has three emoluments clauses: foreign, domestic, and ineligibility. Originalists will avoid the purpose behind these clauses and therefore not see how money spent by lobbyists is an emolument, rather they will relate lobby money to free speech. #
- Lobby money is quid pro quo of the same type as the founders feared at the time they wrote the constitution and I think they would expect us to recognize this and prevent it from happening, but alas nothing will be done because it requires action from the people who benefit from the status quou. SCOTUS upheld the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 in United States v. Harriss (1954); the act enables Congress to know "who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much." Rather than prevent lobby money the act only shines light on who is giving money to whom. I wonder whether the founders would consider that sufficient in the spirit of the emoluments clauses they put in to the Constitution?#
- Democracy in the United States is on the brink because rather than protecting it as defined in the Constitution, which means knowing and upholding its meaning, Presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices use original words to get away with as much as possible. The later is an ideology that leads a candidate for President (later elected President) to claim that Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President great power while the very purpose of the Constitution is to limit power. #
- I don't think it controversial to say that much of what ills the government of the United States is caused by money. What may be controversial is that I do not think giving money is an expression of free speech, rather I think the act of giving money is an emolument. Limiting the amount of money a corporation, committee, or individual gives to an elected official is not an infringement on free speech. Common sense tells us this and yet in 1990 SCOTUS in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission said otherwise. In order to make a more perfect union, as Madison wrote in the preamble to the Constitution, I think we need clear definition that giving of money to elected officials in our republic is an emolument rather than an express of free speech.#
- The difference between money and speech lies in how much the person receiving either needs what is offered. Today elected officials, particularly federal officials, need a lot of money. The amounts of money needed by a person to be elected to office makes it something more than speech because it enables a smaller number of people to influence the person elected. One's need of money and the receipt of that money is a quid pro quo; the giver of the money expects something in return and that expectation makes the giving of money an emolument. #
In Federalist 39 James Madison wrote, "If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."
#
- The founders knew how emoluments could lead to corruption because they lived in a time when it was common practice for foreign countries to gain favor from monarchs by gift giving. Emoluments are not given as an act of generosity, they are given with the expectation of something in return. If you think about it, you could say that emoluments, the giving of gifts of large sums of money, is simply capitalism at work, and here in lies the circumstances we find ourselves in today. #
- We in the United States, so accustomed to our highly capitalistic society, have become numb to the corrosive nature of money and thus think little of emoluments. If we were to write the Constitution today we might not even include emolument clauses in it because they have become such a part of everyday life. The other side of that coin, however, is that everyone in our capitalistic society knows full well that when one person or one committee or one corporation writes a check for thousands, hundreds of thousands or more dollars to a politician it is done with the expectation of something in return. Enough money from a small group of people gains more influence than a citizen could ever hope to gain through exercising their right to free speech. Isn't this how elected officials pretty much ignore what their constituents say?#
Why is it that emoluments from "any King, Prince, or foreign State" is worse than emoluments from citizens, corporations, or Political Action Committees?
#
- Today, like many things, many tend to take a literal view of corruption and emoluments. Huge election donations and lobbying come with expectations that effectively buy votes, but we don't think of this as corruption, at least not legally. However, I don't know how anyone can deny that huge part of our lack of trust in the institutions of government, or media (journalism), or medicine, is not due in large part to an awareness of how much influence on decisions is being bought. The growing lack of trust in government is the corrosion (corruption) of the Republic in plain sight. (Further, if you think about it, much of the lack of trust in Biden or Trump is due to money!)#
- The founders of the United States knew full well the affect emoluments can have on a republic, which is why they included clauses in the Constitution to limit that affect. Unfortunately, the ideology of originalism says that literal words, not the meaning or intent, only matters. (Taken to its logical conclusion, originalism can mean that Supreme Court Justices could be replaced by AI.) Originalists will say, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 only has the words "from any King, Prince, or foreign State" and there is no such prohibition of emoluments given from citizens of the United States, even if the very thing that clause was intended to prevent, which is the corruption of the government through quid pro quo, is what is happening.#
- Over the course of history we have accepted precedent that limits can be placed on free speech when it does harm to others. In my opinion, the SCOTUS Citizens United decision makes that precedent murkier because it expands speech to spending money. #
- The problem with equating money to speech is that money corrupts. Consider, why is it that there is such lack in trust with news organizations? We know that all of the major news organizations are owned by corporations and we know that corporations primary objective is to make their owners money. Consequently most people expect news organizations to bias their reporting toward what makes money; whether or not this true doesn't matter, the widely held perception corrupts trust in news organizations. #
- Every institution and its participants in the United States uses money, and perception exists that the institutions and participants will do anything for more money. A good amount of the lack of trust with institutions is caused by money, and the lack of trust in government is corroding democracy. Nearly everyone knows that lobbyists give money to politicians to get something back, this is a quid pro quo that common sense tells us is corrosive. Like rusty pipes, corrosion left unchecked leads to failure, in this cause failure of democracy.#
- The founders of the United States knew of the corrosive nature of purchasing favor from elected officials, although they appeared most concerned about quid pro quo with foreign governments. The Constitution has three emoluments clauses: foreign, domestic, and ineligibility. Originalists will avoid the purpose behind these clauses and therefore not see how money spent by lobbyists is an emolument, rather they will relate lobby money to free speech. #
- Lobby money is quid pro quo of the same type as the founders feared at the time they wrote the constitution and I think they would expect us to recognize this and prevent it from happening, but alas nothing will be done because it requires action from the people who benefit from the status quou. SCOTUS upheld the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 in United States v. Harriss (1954); the act enables Congress to know "who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much." Rather than prevent lobby money the act only shines light on who is giving money to whom. I wonder whether the founders would consider that sufficient in the spirit of the emoluments clauses they put in to the Constitution?#
- Democracy in the United States is on the brink because rather than protecting it as defined in the Constitution, which means knowing and upholding its meaning, Presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices use original words to get away with as much as possible. The later is an ideology that leads a candidate for President (later elected President) to claim that Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President great power while the very purpose of the Constitution is to limit power. #