Money and politics

For more than a year, Majority Leader Harry Reid had taken to the Senate floor numerous times to blast the Koch brothers, billionaire industrialists and philanthropists whose family fortune is built on oil refining. Reid blames Charles and David Koch for voter suppression, global warming, air pollution, the war on women, income inequality, blocking aid to Ukraine, and lack of patriotism. Reid’s ravings have led people to speculate that he might be coming unhinged in fear of losing control of the Senate after November’s midterm elections. But there’s probably been a method to his madness all along, if he’s softening up the Senate for an outright attack on free speech.

The Kochs have come under fire for giving money to political causes they favor, mostly on the conservative or libertarian side—beneficiaries include The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and Americans for Prosperity. Other billionaires donate to liberal causes, like George Soros and Tom Steyer, but they’re OK with Harry. If the majority leader has his way, though, the Koch brothers will have to find other uses for their money.

The perception of wealthy families and corporations pouring money into causes they favor has always rubbed Americans the wrong way, leading to widespread cries of outrage over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of 2010. Discontent with that ruling, especially among Democrats, led to the crafting of Senate Joint Resolution 19 (House J.R. 119), calling for an amendment to the Constitution. On Sept. 8 the Senate voted to shut down debate and move forward with the amendment, which reads, “… Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

Interestingly, or ironically, the vote was held just a week before Constitution Day (Sept. 17), celebrating a document whose First Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Whose speech would potentially be abridged by the proposed amendment? Not just evil corporations, but labor unions, political action committees, advocacy groups like National Right to Life and the ACLU—in short, anyone with a message who wants to influence an election. And anyone involved in a cause or candidacy wants to influence elections; that’s what elections are about. Freedom of speech takes money, if you want your message to be heard.

The “Democracy for All Amendment” is pitched as a means of getting the money out of politics. I have a news flash: There is no way to get the money out of politics. Money and politics go together like gasoline and automobiles—always have, always will. Money is the fuel of democracy; if allowed to flow freely, it will represent the views of both left and right with some degree of fairness. If not, it will represent the views of those with the power to “regulate reasonable limits.” In which case it won’t be democracy for all, but democracy for those who already own all the influence.