Imagining that the founding fathers intended that free speech be a commodity to be bought and sold like ham hocks has never resonated with my understanding of the Constitution. It’s true that five current members of the U. S. Supreme Court disagree with me and insist that speech is a market item that comes with a price tag attached. Those with the cash in pocket to pony up the purchase price can speak up a storm. Those without the cash in pocket can whisper to themselves in the shower.
Now the odd part is that those five justices claim to be originalists or textualists, or a little of both, where the Constitution is concerned. Yet they add to the Constitution a concept that the language of the document does not contain, that one’s right to free speech should be expanded or diminished based on one’s wealth or lack thereof. No matter how many times I read the simple words of the Constitution, I just don’t see where that’s part of the concept that the framers intended.
By a slim one vote majority, five men in robes have decided that those who should be allowed to speak are those whose pockets are lined with cash. And, with yesterday’s decision in Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, we learn that it is the belief of those five that the authors of the Constitution intended that poor and under-funded political candidates be denied the means to respond to the wealthy and powerful. The message to the average citizen from those five seems simple enough. “Your voice doesn’t matter. Shut up and listen to what the rich and powerful tell you.”
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.