In the equating of such practices by the high court in terms free speech, proponents cheered the decision, hailing it as a victory which promotes the free exchange of opposing thoughts in the free market of ideas. The funny thing though is that most times, political partisans are rarely ever interested in anything in the way of “opposing ideas,” unless such ideas give them a Boogey Man to oppose during election cycles.
However, such “free speech” is yet another stab in the heart of the democratic process as we, the unconnected citizens, are forced to sit back and watch as Big Money contributions influence public policy through the innuendo of [the] reciprocity for donations to, and support of candidates for public office.
In yesterday’s posting (“Why the Republican Party is Better than the Democratic Party”), I lauded the Republicans for their ability to ostensibly take the moral high ground in politics by defining and framing political arguments—especially in political campaigns—which is why they are so successful in winning elections (but they are only as good at governing as the Democrats). If yesterday’s ruling has done anything, it has proven this point in spades. Without batting an eye, the conservative wing of the high court eloquently stated the logic of its position, totally ignoring the fact that they engaged in the same “judicial activism”—making law from the bench—they often accuse liberals of engaging in whenever one is nominated for a potential position, especially within the federal judiciary. And predictably, the ideologically impotent Democrats have failed to shine a light on this double-standard.
Outside of political partisanship, it’s a little difficult to understand the math behind the high court’s thinking; the everyday average citizen is supposed to benefit from giving Big Money donors more of a “say” in the political process? You’ll pardon me if I get up from my desk and walk out of class right about now.