Honestly, I don't know. The way we act in America we seem to agree that this right is protected. This is what it says in Wikipedia under First Amendment/Campaign Finance:
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of some parts, while declaring other parts unconstitutional, of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws. These laws restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Court concluded that limits on campaign contributions "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."[32] However, the Court overturned the spending limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech."[33]
Further rules on campaign finance were scrutinized by the Court when it determined McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a federal law that imposed new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to fund certain advertisements related to elections. However, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both, which they agreed "placed an unconstitutional burden on the parties' right to make unlimited independent expenditures."[34] The Supreme Court also ruled that the provision preventing minors from making political contributions was unconstitutional, relying on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), the Supreme Court sustained an "as applied" challenge to provisions of the 2002 law dealing with advertising shortly before a primary, caucus, or an election.
In Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), the Supreme Court declared the "Millionaire's Amendment" provisions of the BCRA to be unconstitutional. The Court held that easing BCRA restrictions for an opponent of a self-financing candidate spending at least $350,000 of his own money violated the freedom of speech of the self-financing candidate.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), the Court ruled that the BCRA's federal restrictions on electoral advocacy by corporations or unions were unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), which had upheld a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury funds to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the portion of McConnell that upheld such restrictions under the BCRA.[35]
So yes, I guess the Supreme Court upholds that Freedom of Speech equates to Freedom of spending. So that means we as citizens of the United States ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM THE OLIGARCHICAL TENDENCIES of those wealthy enough to buy off politicians. Maybe we need to write a new pledge for candidates, "I hereby pledge that I will uphold my duty in equal portion to the individual citizens who elected me, and will not confer any preferential treatment upon those who gave more money, time, or other resources to aid my campaign. I pledge my duty only to those votes, and to those voters in equal portion to uphold the opinions and political stances of the reasonable voting majority."
I would like to bring back some of the Founding Fathers and see what they think of the slow disintegration of their democratic system. Yeah... you can't ban things, but you can EXPOSE THEM... and that is what I suggest we do. What is the real block towards having open, honest government? That is my question.
No comments:
Post a Comment