Now, I dont want to go off on a rant here...but it is illogical to me, as a thinking person, that the untrammeled introduction of money into the political process can be in any way construed as a protection of free speech. It is patently obvious that my dollar is the equivalent of your dollar or anyone elses dollar -- but yet it is also as clear as day that the difference is in how much we all accumulate, or are permitted to accumulate, or how quickly we accumulate, with the resultant disparity in income and buying power. Ideally, the law takes no notice of that financial inequality, but to assume that the political process exists in such a vacuum is the height of fatuousness. To insist that money equals free speech is to confuse volume with sound itself. That is poor logic, and therefore, a feeble legal argument. I dont care what your political beliefs are, but if you seriously entertain that thought, you are willfully blinding yourself to the obvious, and pretending that all of the differences that money exerts between rich and poor, as individuals, nations, or as any other entity, have no basis in reality when it comes to campaign funding. Somehow -- mirabile dictu -- a different reality exerts itself. Patently false reasoning, and the only way you can argue otherwise is to endorse an agenda of predatory wealth -- the protection of money, as a means to influence political campaigns, is more important under the Constitution than the protection of your right to vote. If this is not a wake-up call for serious debate about our future role as citizens, I dont know what is.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 17:17:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015