When a filthy rich businessman engages in shady backdoor campaign financing, it is not political speech — it is bribery. It is corruption of the highest degree. And it threatens to ruin the greatest ideals of a democratic society. Unlimited campaign financing undermines the foundational equality of opportunity that must be held sacred in any society that purports to care about the standard of freedom. That equality is the centerpiece of the American Dream. But when Super Political Action Committees can hijack candidates to further their own political agenda, the dream remains unrealized and in tatters.
Contrary to popular belief, not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. It is not a blank check that allows completely unfettered speech in all its forms. Some speech can be incredibly harmful. As such, the Supreme Court has correctly carved out numerous exceptions to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court case Miller v. California placed a restriction on speech that is deemed obscene or overly sexual in nature. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire excluded “fighting words” from the category of protected speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio limits speech that incites “imminent lawless action.” Next on this list should have been Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Instead, the Roberts Court made an egregious error in judgement that whittled away the equality of opportunity that is far more valuable than uninhibited campaign financing.
The Court’s erroneous decision has dramatically increased the ability of the rich to widen the inequality gap that already pervades American society. First of all, it limits equality of opportunity by making the barrier to entry for a political race far too restrictive. Only a select few who are well connected enough to have friends with deep pockets can become contenders. Without the support of super PACs, a candidate is at a severe disadvantage in the all-important fundraising race. Only a small minority of the population — generally the most wealthy — has access to the network that leads to support from a super PAC. As such, the classic rags-to-riches story of the everyman-become-Congressman is little more than a myth. For all intents and purposes, the ideal political candidate is a rich white man with a rich white father. Everyone else lacks the necessary resources to be a serious contender.
Further inequalities arise from unlimited campaign financing, because it consolidates economic opportunity in the hands of the rich by severely limiting social mobility. When the wealthy are protected by their Congressman-for-hire, it keeps the rich on top of the social ladder while perpetuating a culture of systemic poverty on the lower rungs.
Thanks to tax cuts for the rich, unwarranted CEO bonuses and Congressional overprotection of corporations deemed “too big to fail,” the richest Americans have seen unprecedented income gains, while the incomes of ordinary hardworking Americans remain stagnant. According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent has seen their incomes rise by 275 percent since 1979. In the same time span, the bottom quintile rose a mere 18 percent. This disparity is glaring evidence that the wealthy hold enough Congressional sway to stack the cards permanently in their favor.
Campaign donors get what they pay for — control of their candidate’s politics. Unsurprisingly, those politics become skewed towards aiding and protecting the wealthy. In 2010, a study by the Government Accountability Office found that U.S. Corporations paid a federal tax rate of only 12.6 percent compared to the federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent that they should be paying. This is where the wealthy see a return on their massive campaign investments. In exchange for backdoor campaign financing, politicians give kickbacks to their wealthy donors in the form of tax credits and exemptions.
In this way, the benefits of unregulated campaign finance go exclusively to the rich, while the burden is felt by the American people at large. In other words, it helps a small minority remain on top of the social ladder while severely limiting the economic potential of the vast majority. This goes to show that even if campaign financing is a type of political speech, it is not speech that should go completely unchecked. When it does, as Citizens United has allowed, the consequences can be devastating. Despite what the Supreme Court says, the political pseudo-speech of unlimited money funneled through unregulated super PACs and into our campaigns is not worth the rampant inequality of opportunity it creates.
In October, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras challenged his main competitor, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, to support a “People’s Pledge” that calls for an end to external campaign financing by super PACs. Raimondo recently agreed to support the People’s Pledge, though not without dragging her feet significantly in the process. This is a commendable step forward for both candidates. However, the move appears to be more politically motivated than rooted in genuine ideals. As The Herald previously reported, Taveras has been consistently outpaced by the fundraising efforts of Raimondo who relies in part on a variety of super PACs to maintain her edge. Regardless, it is refreshing to see the candidates themselves making a push for fair and just campaign finance rules. A similar compact was agreed upon in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race between former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass and Elizabeth Warren. But outside of a select few progressive New England states, most candidates have no reason to end their gluttonous feast on the unregulated money flowing from super PACs.
It is clear that the answer cannot come from the courts. The Supreme Court has already set its dangerous precedent. And our ineffective, gridlocked Congressmen only stand to lose from limiting the viability of super PACs. Finally, the candidates themselves will only make progress on this front if it is politically convenient for them to do so — which is precisely why we must make it politically impossible for them to get elected while still accepting super PAC funding. Voting for a candidate backed by super PACs is voting directly against your interests — unless you happen to be one of the richest 1 percent of Americans.
Sam Hillestad ’15 will not vote for any candidate backed by super PACs. He can be reached at samuel_hillestad@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
