What Money Is Not

A lot of the talk this campaign season in the US has revolved around the detrimental effects of the recent US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As has been the case for several decades, the high court's decision hinged on the concept that money is a form of free speech. Such decisions always favor the wealthy over the rest because the wealthy have gobs of loot and the rest of us don't.

I have never understood this rationale. If you look up the word "money" in a dictionary, you will find the following meanings:

1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.
3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.
4.
a. Pecuniary profit or loss.
b. One's salary; pay.
5. An amount of cash or credit.
6. Sums of money, especially of a specified nature. Often used in the plural.
7. A wealthy person, family, or group.

Do you see a definition that equates money with speech? I certainly don't!

In my book, the freedom to spend your money on what you want and the freedom to say what you want are two different animals altogether. If a person or group wants to use the former to purchase the latter, it would be okay to do that AS LONG AS you identity who you are are and who is putting up the money. This would allow others to judge the impetus behind your speech and to gauge the veracity of your claims.

As it stands right now, nebulous sounding groups can say almost anything they want in the political sphere and no one has any idea who they are, who is putting up the money AND what agenda they follow. It's almost akin to allowing anonymous people and groups to lie through their teeth and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

In order for a democracy to remain ever vibrant, a free flow of information is essential. However, nested in that requirement is the ability of all concerned to know who is saying what. People need some mechanisms in place to be able to distinguish between crackpots and more reliable sources. The Citizens United decision has gutted any such mechanism.

It is because of this decision and others like it that we now find our cherished democracy in great peril.