Money talks

Sometimes I wonder if the Constitution is the problem or if it’s just the Supreme Court. Well, my doubts have been resolved. Our conservative Supreme Court has a one-sided view of the Constitution. They seem to interpret the preamble where it says “We the People” to mean “We the Corporations.”

Two cases are illustrative.

The first, Citizens United, established the court’s view that money is speech and curtailing spending it on political advertising by corporations, whom they define as people, is unconstitutional. So if money is speech, does that mean that only people with money are entitled to speak? As a practical matter, yes.

But then, isn’t the court denying most of the people the right to speak simply by virtue of not having money? Again, yes.

What if, instead, we had publicly financed elections where all the people were represented, and the people put up the money for political speech? Wouldn’t that be free speech for everyone?

Then there’s the Entertainment Merchants Association, in which the court recently ruled that restricting sales of horribly violent video games to minor children was a violation of free speech. Yet, those same kids can’t legally buy a Playboy magazine at 7-Eleven.

Bob Wynhausen

Sandpoint