Economics 101: Money is an object with value. Larger amounts of money have a higher value. When people spend money, they wield purchasing power. In politics, when contributors give money to campaigns, they gain clout - directly or indirectly - over the policy platform of the politician or party that they support. Then who, exactly, are politicians or parties really representing if elected? Are they representing all of the people they claim to speak for or the special interests of a privileged few?
Speech, conversely, is not an object. The value of one's speech is independent of one's purchasing power and is therefore independent of one's economic fortune. Nowhere is this more true than in political campaigns, where anyone can wage influential power with words. Family background, job and even educational status do not determine the extent that a person can sway voters. A strong personality or loud voice - oral or written - may be an asset, but again, neither depends on wealth or status.
Take the obvious example of corporations funding political campaigns. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that government restrictions on independent campaign expenditures by organizations violate the First Amendment right to free speech. This has opened the door for corporations to exert even greater influence over the American political process. But should they have the same rights as individuals? Corporations' primary goals are economic profit - a corporation's "free speech" is inherently connected to its balance sheet, but individuals possess a range of reasons for expressing themselves politically. A cynic might disagree, but I believe the American public votes for more than its own economic interest. It votes for moral, social and environmental reasons, among others. The Constitution discusses the rights belonging to other institutions - namely religion and the press - that traditionally have a broad range of reasons to exercise political influence. Nowhere in this document did the nation's founders allocate rights to corporate bodies. Allowing corporations to wield power through the guise of "free speech" does nothing more than pollute our political process.
In the United States, politicians are meant to work for all people, regardless of socioeconomic status. Our votes count the same, again regardless of financial standing and the inane ideas proposed in Herald opinions columnist Oliver Hudson's '14 Nov. 13 column, "Universal suffrage is immoral." Thus, campaigns must operate to ensure the wealthy do not have the advantage in elections. To maximize equal opportunity for all individuals to express political interests, campaign finance reform is necessary. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court affirmed free speech. But the Court went a step too far by effectively assigning it a dollar sign.
Americans have come to rely on the adage "you can't put a price on freedom." It must follow that freedom of speech is also priceless.
Maggie Tennis '14 is really glad election season is over.
