Those who argue that the spending of money should not be protected as free speech often begin by highlighting the insane amount of money spent on campaigns and the constant bombardment of political ads on the airwaves of swing states. While I, as a New Yorker, am gladly free from such promotion, I cannot deny that it has become a critical pawn in the political chess game. Because money can - and does - influence elections, those in the campaign finance reform camp conclude that it is antithetical to the democratic principle of one person, one vote. The conclusion that campaigns must be insulated from the greenback simply because of its potential influence is questionable. This runs counter to the principles of American liberty, democracy and free speech.
Let's take a step back from the populist stigma we as liberal college students have attached to wealth specifically and think more broadly about the logic behind the conclusion that money's impact must be stopped. Not allowing wealth the same protection we allow speech is to say that one person should not be able to influence the votes of another, plain and simple. But this conclusion is contrary to the principle of free speech. Free speech is of course rooted in one's potential to influence others - if it weren't, why would anyone speak in the first place? Of course, donors are not the only people who have more influence on elections than the average person. The entire media can sway elections by speaking at its whim. Paul Krugman, Steven Colbert and Rush Limbaugh are all perfect personifications of the media's influence. These opinions clearly sway elections. But we do not limit their abilities to influence elections on these grounds. Rather, we guard it - morally and constitutionally. Celebrities influence elections, academics influence elections and the members of the Brown Democrats influence elections. But this does not contradict the principle of one person, one vote.
The money donated to campaigns and super PACs - channeled through to the overwhelming levels of advertisements - have the same intention as those who volunteer to canvass with the Brown Democrats or write a scathing criticism of Mitt Romney in The Herald: to influence the opinions of others and potentially sway their votes. Any argument in favor of limiting the influence of money must make a principled distinction between its influence and the others that share the spotlight. The protection of donor contributions is based on the same principle as democracy and expanding enfranchisement: each individual across the country is knowledgeable and intelligent enough to cast his or her own personal ballot. To say that political ads meddle with the democratic process is to argue against this understanding of the aptitude of the average voter and, more broadly, against the standard of free speech.
Alex Drechsler '15 is proud of those who donate their time, money and energy to political campaigns. He can be reached at alex_drechsler@brown.edu.
