Supreme Court Citizens United
Please reference the Supreme Court decision: Citizens United versus Federal Elections Commission, 21 January 2010. Here is a link to the blog of the Supreme Court of the United States on this particular decision:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
This decision is and will be a disaster. It does have the potential of destroying our democracy. This concept has done so in the past. For example, I submit that this concept played large roles in the downfall of Rome and the city/state Venice. My first introduction to this concept was from Professor J. Rufus Fears in a video lecture series titled “The World Was Never the Same.” The professor noted that wealthy people obtained heavy influence in the politics of Rome and Venice. Politics for individuals does not work well for countries and governments.
This is as true now as it ever was, even more so in our capitalistic economy. Members of corporate boards lobby incessantly for laws that aid their companies to result in exorbitant salaries and bonuses for the individuals. This is part of the cause of the increasing “economic divide.” (Please Google it.) One of many complicating factors is that conversations and lobbying efforts of the wealth and big business are kept hidden from the public view.
The concept of free speech, which includes spoken and written speech, is the second phrase of the first amendment. We can presume that being in the first amendment was not by accident.
This essay presents the concept that political speech is a special category of free speech. Generally speaking, the result of, or hoped for result of political speech, is the implementation of law. It is about the control of government, the laws of the people, and therefore, control of the people. It is much more than personal opinion. It is the desire to enforce that opinion upon the general population. This is a critical point and merits some redundancy.
Political speech is quite different from, essentially, all other speech.
We need a definition. Political Speech is any words or activity that is intended to have, and/or can reasonably be expected to have, any effect upon the laws of the country or upon those elected to office.
Corporations should be explicitly prohibited from engaging in political speech and any activity which may reasonably be expected to influence and election or the making of any laws or policy. The phrase “… any activity which may reasonably…” is necessary. Or something of that nature. The Citizens United decision declared that political spending is a form of protected speech under the first amendment. Therefore, any laws about political speech must include language which explicitly includes all forms of activity that may be regarded as political in nature.
Political Speech Is Special
Political speech is much more than just ramblings and opinions, it is attempts to control to government and the laws. Those in turn control our lives. Pretty much every aspect of our lives. Please, think about that for a bit.
When any individual or corporation, indeed any organization, attempts to control the laws, all such behavior should be in the public view. None of it should be in private. Unfortunately, this is not currently our situation. Nor it is completely possible.
Citizens United says that corporations and wealthy individuals has the right to as much “free speech” as they care for. Money is, in effect, free speech. The Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United declares there is no distinction between corporate and non-corporate speech. It allows corporations and the wealthy to spend as much money on political issues as they may chose.
A large part of this problem is that corporations and the wealth have so much money, that those who disagree no longer have a viable voice in the political process. Even when we citizens group together, we cannot begin to reach the levels of funding available to corporations. We, the citizens, are shut out of the democratic process.
Another part is that corporations have no moral compass. The C-board, meaning Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and others titles beginning with Chief, want to make the company as profitable as possible, in the short term. (Long term for them might be two or three years.) That is what gets them huge salaries and bonuses. Regardless of their personal opinions, when they step into their office, they are myopic. All they see is the bottom line of the company, which translates directly into their personal wealth. That is their only moral compass.
If there were not bad enough, it is just the beginning. Corporations can lobby politicians. Indirectly and directly. Corporation can, and indeed do, help politicians get elected. The corporations and, and do, throw their weight, meaning their money, into ads that not only promote specific policy, but that serve to get selected politicians elected. The corporation play a much larger role in the selections of elected officials than do the citizens.
This is a major problem. When you and I, or even a collection of some number of citizens, speak to elected officials, the officials compare our donations to help them get elected with those of the corporations. We don’t stand a chance.
When some number of people get together and discuss politics, it is not possible, or reasonable, to expect that all discussions be recorded and made available publicly. But there needs to be some limit. When some number of members of the RNC (Republican National Committee) or the DNC (Democratic National Committee) gather together to decide on policy, shouldn’t that be public knowledge? Where is the line to be drawn?
There is no single line that might be drawn. There are multiple lines to be drawn. Simple yet comprehensive wording is rather difficult to discover. The goal here is to prioritize comprehensiveness over simplicity.
Any organization that conducts political activity must, at the lowest levels, be composed entirely of individuals representing only themselves. Any person who receives any compensation of any type to develop or present any political speech must be able to trace all such compensation to individual citizens. And that compensation must have some limits. Wealthy people should not have the ability so spend large amounts of funds and consequently drown out the opinions of those with more modest abilities. And yes, that raises more questions.
Only United States citizens eligible to vote, and the children of such persons, may provide any resource, may initiate, or may participate in any activity to influence any election to public office. The maximum financial value that any single person can contribute to any single election is set to twice the median income and determined by an appropriate government agency selected by Congress or the individual states. The activities of the press in reporting events and or of the media in the role of advertising paid for by these United States citizens is not abridged by this amendment. The right of these Citizens to create associations and legal entities for the sole purpose of advancing a political position is not abridged by this amendment providing all other aspects are met. All activities with the purpose or effect of affecting how other persons might vote are declared to be public behaviors and therefore not subject to personal privacy otherwise accorded to all.
Any person who, knowingly acts with or on behalf, of any corporation or legal entity, not composed entirely of U.S. Citizens, and who has taken or attempts to take any action to affect any election, shall be guilty of a felony and may be subject to fines, prison time, and disbarment from voting up to life. Any person who takes any action to affect an election using a false identity, or violates any election law, shall be subject to the same penalties.
Minimum penalties may be set by the United States Congress and by individual states.
Side Note: The requirements and declarations that political activity is public activity may be problematic. Two or a few people discussing politics should not be legally declared as a public conversation. The activities of the DNC or RNC should be public. All discussions involving any elected official that concern possible or pending legislation, should be public. (This must include all staff and aides who assist an elected official.) So how might this be described in simple clear text in the style of much of the Constitution of the United States?
Only United States citizens eligible to vote, and the children of such persons, may provide any resource, may initiate, or may participate in any activity to influence any election to public office.
The amendment must be abundantly clear that only United States citizens, human beings, are allowed to take any action to affect an election. The phrase “eligible to vote” precludes any possibility of any business attempting to weasel in and find some method to control politicians. They will strive mightily to do this.
The problem here is that big business wants to not just affect but to control the laws that govern their behavior. Big business is not concerned with the welfare of the individual citizens, only with their bottom line. The individuals that ascend to the boards and high-ranking positions within these businesses have a striking tendency to forget about the needs of the people, meaning the public at large. These people generally have sufficient funds to do just about whatever they desire so the needs of the common folk simply disappear from their perception. Their only perspective becomes that of making more money and gaining more personal wealth, at any cost.
The maximum amount that any single person can contribute to any single election is set to twice the median income.
Individuals who achieve great success in life, in terms of monetary success, have a strong tendency to behave like big business. They will take any and every possible opportunity to advance their personal agenda at almost any cost to others. An example is the Koch brothers. (More on them at a later time. Readers are encouraged to do their own research.) The fact that an individual is wealthy does not impart upon them an ability to govern better or to have better ideas about government than the average citizen. As this is being written, D Trump is an outstanding example. He has more wealth that more than 99% of the world, yet, it is clear, he lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution of the United States. People like the Koch brothers and Trump should not be able to overwhelm the positions of hundreds to millions of citizens by virtue of extreme spending in advertising. Now that Biden has won the 2020 election and sworn in, the legacy of Trump remains. The probability is high that an equivalent follow-to Trump will be elected in the future so the references remain.
It is my carefully considered opinion that the general public is much more susceptible to well-funded campaigns than we care to admit. We must take this into consideration and put a limit on their ability to influence. By setting a limit that is tied to the medium income we accommodate the effects of inflation.
If we do not set a limit, and thereby allow, for example, Congress and state legislatures to set a limit of their choice, then one party can set the limit as they choose and effectively nullify any legal limits.
At this point in history, the year 2019, I do go out on a possible limb and make the presumption that if the Republicans had the power, they would do all they could to eliminate any limits on campaign spending.
Oh! Wait! They have been in power and that is the state of things now. And they make and have made no complaints about this condition much less any attempts to change it.
But, to be complete, the Democrats are not doing much more than the Republicans. Therefore, this amendment is sorely needed.
The activities of the press in reporting events and or of the media in the role of advertising paid for by these United States citizens is not abridged by this amendment.
The freedom of the press is an important bulwark of our democracy. It is part of the first sentence of the first amendment. Trump has demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding this. Since he so openly expresses complete contempt of the press and the importance of its freedom, we must be prepared for the event that we, the body politic, elect another president that is equally, or possibly more, unfit to serve as president. It must be clear that this amendment does not encroach upon the press and advertising media.
However, and this is a big one: The television and media organization called Fox News has shown that its reporting can have significant a significant effect upon public opinion. Fox has clearly crossed the line from objective news into attempts at affecting elections. (As of April 2023, Fox has admitted to outright lying to the public and is paying $785.5 million to settle the suit. Will that stop them? Will that mitigate the bad effect they have upon the population.) But where is that dividing line? There should be some type of restrictions upon such behavior. Just how such restrictions might be worded or enforced is extremely difficult.
The right of these Citizens to create associations and legal entities for the purpose of advancing a political position is not abridged by this amendment providing all other aspects are met.
Individual citizens must have the explicit right to band together to make their voices heard. Still, that right will be limited by the first two sentences in that no individual can contribute beyond some limit, regardless of this venue in which they chose to spend their money. There is also the need to be clear that the amount of time a person may spend on political speech should not be limited.
All activities with the purpose of affecting an election are declared to be public behaviors and therefore not subject to personal privacy otherwise accorded to all.
Taking action to affect an election is not a private endeavor. It is an endeavor that affects all of those within the realm of the office holder, and further. Those actions must therefore be public knowledge, not private. This does not mean you cannot chat in private, or plan in private. The actions you implement become a public endeavor.
This sentence bears in mind actions taken by the country of Russia and individuals acting for the benefit of Russia and its political and financial leaders. While some may still debate the amount, those actions did indeed have a significant effect upon the presidential election of 2016. With this sentence, federal and state officials will have legal authority to track down, for example, the activities of people and computer programs that use public media to affect the 2016 election. If the FBI or CIA, or any other appropriate law enforcement agency, makes a determination that a series of, again for example, twitter posts, is having an effect upon the voters, they may get the proper court’s permission to investigate. Those responsible for that activity will not be able to claim personal privacy in their attempts to hide their activities or the sources of funds that support said activities.
This bears repeating: The actions of public officials and the actions of the people to get any individual elected, must all be considered as public domain activities. They are not private and personal activities, rather are activities designed to have an effect upon all. Therefore, all such actions must always be in the public domain.
When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny.