McCutcheon ruling invalidates political spending restrictions

The McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case was decided on Wednesday, April 2.  SCOTUS struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits set by federal law which capped the amount of money individuals can give to candidates for office and to political action committees at $123,200.00 for the two-year election cycle.  

In favor of McCutcheon, the justices voted 5-4.  The justices were split between party lines, with conservatives voting the majority.  Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision, claiming that the aggregate limits don’t actually prevent corruption and that the overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”  

Image Source: theprogressivecynic.com

What concerns me the most about this decision, which is consistent with the series of recent SCOTUS rulings (i.e. the 2010 Citizens United case), is that it further decreases the public’s trust in the government.  In Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion, he argues that the plurality opinion confines corruption to “quid pro quo” corruption, which narrowly defines it as “a direct exchange of an official act for money.”  That definition doesn’t recognize corruption as “garnering ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties’” like it had in a prior case.  He further explains that previous cases in history have shown that Congress regulated campaign contributions in order to maintain the integrity of government institutions, which demonstrates a broader interest than what the plurality acknowledged.  

Image Source: paytoplaylawblog.com

The First Amendment should protect not only the individual’s right to free speech, but the public’s collective speech as well.  So, it’s understandable that the appellant felt his First Amendment rights were being restricted by the aggregate limits.  I mean, who wouldn’t?  It’s your money, you earned it - shouldn’t you be able to support your chosen candidates and shape your future to serve your interests?  Why are you limited to just 16 candidates when you'd really like to endorse 28?  I get it.  However, the Court’s decision did not take into account the public’s interest.  Regardless of the legal definition of corruption, money talks.  This decision just made it easier for the wealthy to continue to buy elections and harder for the voice of the general public to be heard.  This ruling went the wrong direction.  Many already feel like their interests and opinions don’t matter - this just means the public’s confidence in our system will erode even further.      

Obscurity arouses suspicions

In his article, “Government Secrecy” Langston Behr discusses the issue of how much government information is kept from the public and the impact this has on our trust in the system.  I agree with his stance that the government should make more information available to its citizens.  To those who argue that doing so poses a security risk, I think if someone was in fact interested in being malicious towards our country, they would figure out a way to get whatever information they wanted.

It’s interesting that during the President’s second term, the Obama administration withheld double the amount of information withheld in his first term.  In addition to the question, “What is the government hiding from us?” I have to ask, “Why are they hiding it?”  

I don’t know if I wholly agree with the broad statement that the government should flat out give us the information we ask for.  But if denied the information, we should be informed as to why - we deserve an explanation.  This may be just as unrealistic, but at least we are treated with more respect.  

As for underground societies, the illuminati, and whatnot - I’ve often wondered about these stories myself.  Mr. Behr, I’d love to talk more about conspiracies with you!  

The 2014 Civil Rights Summit - Inspiring!

"Social Justice in the 21st Century: 
Empowering Minds, Changing Hearts, and Inspiring Service"

Social justice leaders gathered for a panel discussion at the 2014 Civil Rights Summit to share their thoughts on the issues Americans face today and spread hope about making a difference in society.  The dialogue between moderator Shirley Franklin and speakers Lex Frieden, David Robinson, Maria Shriver, and Steve Stoute was candid and optimistic.  Done in a loose Q&A format, each leader informed us about the causes closest to their hearts and presented enlightening ideas and perspectives.    

After watching The Shriver Report’s documentary "Paycheck to Paycheck," I was excited to learn that Maria Shriver was speaking at the Summit and I'd be able to watch it streaming online.  Her work in promoting women’s issues has made me reconsider some of my beliefs about public programs.  For instance, at the panel she said that not only can the government do better, but women can do better by thinking of themselves as providers.  A message like that empowers not just the women who need help but the people who want to help them.    

As a journalist, Shriver believes in telling a story to get the message out there and have an impact on the issues we’re still facing.  Basically, everyone has a story to tell - this is my philosophy as well.  While I have no plans of becoming a journalist, the idea of storytelling as a way of helping people gives me hope that I (and others like me) can make a difference in society (and in politics!) through a gentle yet equally powerful medium.    

Another highlight from the discussion is the media’s focus on getting ratings rather than presenting facts.  Franklin stated, “If it bleeds, it leads,” and Stoute confirmed that the number one leading story in local news is “missing white girls.”  It’s wonderful that they touched on this problem a little bit.

On the topic of what we can do to affect lives, the panel agreed that change really begins within the individual.  With respect, kindness, and compassion, one person can inspire others and good things will follow.  Frieden spoke about people with disabilities - how important it is for people to see beyond what they can’t do and instead focus on what they can do.  This thought struck a chord with me because as an avid observer of people, I’ve spent a lot of time watching how energy flows from one person to the next.  In school hallways, I witness peoples’ interactions and notice that certain people aren’t included in conversation not because they lack interest in participating, but because of assumptions made about them (as if being in a wheelchair or using a walking stick automatically makes them so different from everyone else).  Then, something beautiful happens - one person makes an effort to include someone who’s not currently in the conversation, and I can see their eyes light up.  Ideas are exchanged through conversation and these seemingly small moments can affect a person’s life. 

While it only lasted slightly over an hour, I very much enjoyed the talk.  It was upbeat and heartfelt.  Ahh, if only there were more programs like this on TV…