The Supreme Court’s Gift to the Billionaire Who Has Everything: Plutocracy

It started with Watergate. Disgusted by corruption at the highest level of American politics, Congress enacted reforms, among them, limits on campaign spending. To restore faith in the political process, wealthy contributors were prevented from trying to buy votes with large donations.

At the time, this was a no brainer. Tamping down money in politics had a broad based appeal. The Supreme Court readily upheld those limits in its seminal 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo.

For years, it was accepted, bedrock American law that Congress could limit campaign spending, that this was good for democracy, and undermined corruption.

Citizens United changed all that. In 2010, a bare five justice majority ruled that corporations and labor unions could spend as much as they wish on campaign advocacy, as long as that money was not contributed directly to candidates. And thus, super PACs were born. Left for another day was the issue of contribution limits to individual candidates, political parties and political action committees.

That day has arrived. In today’s decision of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the evisceration continues. The high court struck down limits on aggregate spending by individuals. While each of us can still contribute a maximum of $2600 to a favored candidate, aggregate limits of $123,000 to all candidates, parties and political action committees in a two year period were struck down. A single donor may now give millions. (And I have no doubt the individual limit will be the next to go.)

The five conservative justices in the majority held that individuals have a free speech right to donate money. Yes, corporations are now people and money is now speech! The court further decided that the aggregate limits did not prevent corruption – the rationale for their enactment.

The major difference between the majority and the dissenters was on the definition of corruption. The majority had a very narrow reading of the term, considering it only as the heavy-handed “quid pro quo” variety. Here’s some money, now pass this bill I want. But nearly everyone is more sophisticated than that today. As the dissent pointed out, big money buys big access and big influence – sometimes hard to prove, but widely understood.

Breaking news from the Department of the Obvious: donors get better access to candidates. In a recent study, candidates were emailed from “donors” and separately from “constituents.” Guess which group got more access? Donors were five times as likely to get a meeting with a congressperson or senior staffer than a mere voter.  And does anyone think a donor who contributes millions does not get more access than a voter who gives $100?

Today’s decision solves a problem no one thought existed: not enough money in American politics!

Only a constitutional amendment can overturn the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon, and a movement is afoot to do just that.

I had dinner with Elizabeth Edwards, attorney, political activist and wife of fallen presidential candidate John Edwards, months before her death from breast cancer. She was so disturbed by the American media’s fixation on her husband’s philandering, which had hurt her personally, but which was not worthy of so many hours of airtime. The issue she wished we would all focus on? Money in politics, and overturning Citizens United via a constitutional amendment. That was the only solution, she said, and it was imperative we all get moving on it.

Elizabeth, I have not forgotten you.

Billionaires do not need our help. Democracy does. Anatole France said: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

The modern twist: Our Supreme Court, in a bold advance for equality, holds that the rich as well as the poor have the right to contribute millions to politicians.

As the rich get profoundly richer in America – we are now at 1920s levels of income inequality – Congress and the courts increasingly cater to their interests. Today’s ruling speeds that process up.

Constitutional amendments should not be adopted lightly, but in this case one is sorely needed, to prevent our democracy from becoming a plutocracy.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.