I can’t remember the last time I spoke with anyone who actually likes our current system of campaign financing. Truthfully, the only people who actually support allowing virtually unlimited money to flow into election campaigns are the special interest groups. They have large amounts of money to spend and want to spend it for the sole purpose of influencing legislation that is favorable to their cause -- in other words, people who want the right to legally bribe elected officials. Bribery truly is the correct word here. While the money goes to the campaign’s bank account and not the candidate’s personal bank account, that’s a difference without significance; the candidate needs both accounts flush with money to save his job.
So, if the majority of Americans want to end legalized bribery of elected officials, why doesn’t it happen? Why does virtually every law that is passed to correct this enormous problem get ruled unconstitutional? Believe it or not, the answer our Supreme Court gives us is that these financial contributions are protected by the First Amendment right of free speech. The notion is that if the public does not have the right to spend money to speak their peace, their right to do so is abridged.
But is the right to spend money to speak the same thing as the right to speak?