Not As Bad As I Thought, But Still Bad

CNN paused from it's 24-7 coverage of the latest on the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 to fling a disturbing bit of news into my Twitter feed this morning-  I thought that it was announcing that the Supreme Court had struck down limits on the amount of money people could donate to any one candidate during an election.   I had a bit of a Twitter rant about it, but then I actually read a news article about it and discovered more than what CNN could fit into 140 characters.

It's not quite that bad, but it's still pretty bad.  Instead, what they've done is kept the overall limits on money, but said you can donate that amount do however many candidates you want.  So, if you're a billionaire and want to go shopping for a Congressperson or a Senator, well, get the old Amex Black out of the wallet because it's party time.

Conservatives are, of course, responding to Liberal rage with snark about 'free speech' but here's where I come down on it:

1.  Money isn't speech.

2.  Direct contributions should be capped at $100 for everyone, regardless. (Don't get me wrong: I think if you want to cut an ad endorsing a candidate with your own money and put it on television, you should be free to do so.  If the NRA or the Sierra Club wants to endorse a candidate, they should be able to shout it from the rooftops- but by allowing people with more money to contribute more directly to a candidate, you're essentially legalizing bribery and peddling influence- because, come on- you think the guy who gives $25 is going to get more attention than the guy who gives $2500?  I don't think so.)

This is one of those things that absolutely enrages me because it's essentially selling off our democracy one court ruling at a time.  My Constitutional Rights are not commodities.  They're not predicated- nor should they ever be- on how much money I can contribute to a political candidate.  But the Supreme Court is basically saying that the rich can have more Constitutional Rights than everyone else.  Well, fuck that.  The idea we need be striving toward is one in which my contribution to a political party/candidate can get me as much influence as Donald Trump's contribution to that same political party/candidate.   Everyone needs to be playing by the same rules with this stuff to ensure the health of our democracy.  This ruling essentially says 'one standard for Richie Rich and another standard for you peasants.'   And Justice Thomas even noted that the court's ruling setting a cap on individual donations is weakening already.  That's going to be the next to go.

And if we're going to go after Judges on the State Level who rule in favor of gay marriage, I don't see why Supremes that rule in favor of the super-rich should be held to a different standard.  Someone needs to tell Al Franken to drop his silly shit about a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United- let's hold the Supreme Court accountable to the will of the people, shall we?  Retention votes, every ten years!