Tuesday April 2, 2024; 4:02 PM EDT
- 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. #