In the misguided 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that money is the equivalent of free speech and that campaign spending limits violate the 1st Amendment. With the Buckley decision, the court overturned campaign spending limits and created the “soft money” loophole–the source of repeated scandal and contention today.
This decision burdened our politics with a campaign finance system that fosters public cynicism and promotes the domination of campaigns by wealthy campaign contributors. This is wrong because it distorts the American ideal of democratic equality for all our citizens.
The soundness of political ideas should not be related to the amount of money advocates can spend to publicize them. That is why 24 state attorneys general (not including our own Jim Ryan) have asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Buckley vs. Valeo case and declare that money is not the functional equivalent of free speech in politics.
Ninety-six percent of Americans have never given money to candidates for public office. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of the voting age population gave contributions of $200 or more to federal candidates. If “money is speech,” then the vast majority of ordinary Americans have been rendered politically mute by the big money “talkers.”
Money-as-free-speech undermines democracy. Limiting campaign contributions and spending will improve political discussion, just as observing speed limits on our highways makes it possible for us all to travel safely.
More Top Picks Best Outdoor Sectionals
It’s time for the Supreme Court to overturn the Buckley decision.