To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,
RE: The Appearance of Corruption
by Peter W Johnson
I grew up in our country being taught that we all have the opportunity to fulfill our lives by becoming what we want to become, simply by playing with the help of some definite rules of fairness and acknowledging their importance. In recent years, with the introduction of Citizens United, and the very recent ruling of McCutcheon Vs. FEC, I am now wondering where those fair and dignified rules have gone?
We have a long history which includes the wealthiest Americans using the power and influence that comes with that wealth in order to exploit and deny the fair treatment of those in the lower classes, but still we were told that people with the humble beginnings of Abraham Lincoln also had the potential for unlimited fulfillment, and, as Martin Luther king said, (in words to this effect) “The arc of change is long but it bends slowly towards justice.”
So, myself and many Americans who have often despaired that our country is losing its way, have taken solace in knowing that as Americans, we would eventually and inevitably see changes in our laws that affirm human dignity, and correctly assert the democratic values that our hopes and dreams were based upo — not just the power used by Oligarchs to destroy the ideals of equality that we were so fervently promised.
Although I am obviously not a Constitutional scholar, or any particularly talented intellectual, I would like to point out that none of our Constitutional rights has ever come so complete and so set in stone that they needn’t ever be modified in order to preserve the public’s assurance that all of us are part of the same worthy experiment in equality called America. But I am sad to say that some of the Court’s recent rulings have convinced me that this inherent promise, intended to be included in any truly Democratic system of government, seems even more remote, tattered and fragile than it was in the times of my youth and in the times of my parent’s youth.
That’s why I feel compelled to express my dissatisfaction with the apparently faulty wisdom of the highest court in the land when it displays little or no concerns anymore, for honest and fair elections being held, without the indignity and stain which come from instituting laws that allow the use of blatant and politically injurious corruption.
We have always been taught that our most fundamental freedoms can be interpreted and modified by the courts in order to balance those freedoms with our need to protect the common welfare of all our citizens. The First Amendment, we were told, would not guarantee anyone the right to yell, FIRE! in a crowed theater when no real danger is actually present. In the second amendment, we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, but obviously, it would be absurd for the courts to literally interpret this right to apply to undefined and unregulated uses, of any kinds of “arms”—a word that applies to many different kinds of weapons with varying degrees of power and destructive force—such as fully automatic machine guns, flamethrowers, bazookas, missile launchers, ICBMs and (to follow this line of literal reasoning to its absurd extremes) even nuclear weapons.
Traditionally, when the courts do place limits on our freedoms, one of the most overriding reasons for doing so, is the simple protection of the public’s safety and personal welfare. However, both Citizen’s United and McCutcheon vs. FEC, only undermine our rights to freely elect those whom we want to hold office—allowing the unhealthy influences and unfair practices that give undue advantages to those who are wealthy. Are we really protected and free when governed by laws that render our political voices moot and ineffectual?
Why should we not consider that drastically tilting the playing field in favor of wealthy Americans is a danger, and detrimental to our 14th Amendment assurances that we all have the right to life, liberty and property, as well as equal protection under the law?
Instead, the current and extremely unfair advantages we grant to those with sums of money that allow them to make incredibly large donations to politicians of their choice, (often anonymously) not only deprive us of equal protections under the law, but also erodes our freedoms and liberties by granting such vested interests, the power to control our laws and our society—in essence—just by buying those laws intended to guide it? To insist that money is a form of free speech, is analogous to the idea that no one should be hindered from loudly and erroneously, screaming fire! in a crowed theater. And, the idea that anyone can use obscenely large amounts of money to make personal donation to political candidates, as well as give Corporations that same freedom based on the idea that somehow they have the same rights as ordinary human beings, is really a disgraceful thing for esteemed justices like yourselves to endorse,
Again, It allows the richest among us to personally purchase the kind of government they want, as well as determining those who will lead it—giving them inordinate and unchecked power to do so. In this respect, let me submit that granting any person, party or corporation, virtually unchecked abilities to control our electorate, and minimize or nullify the wishes of many millions of ordinary people—whose voices would normally determine how our government is composed and who our leader will be—is discriminatory and obscene.
Such power and influence could more aptly be described as, assuring us that all free speech is granted us equally, but that some forms of free speech (enjoyed by the rich) are MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS! Am I to believe that huge amounts of income supposedly exist on par with much smaller amounts, even when the power of greater funding sways voters despite the idea that supposed fairness is involved?
I have always been proud to live and thrive in a society which respects my rights as an individual and, which inherently includes the idea that men of power, charisma and wealth, potentially have no greater opportunity to prevail than did my grandfather—a Finnish American immigrant, who hiked into the deep woods, built a cabin, and began clearing the 160 acres that the Homestead act allowed him to own. And even though, people like my father, whose pay was partially withheld for all the years that Social Security existed—while it collected his money and the money of others in order to provide them with a sense of security and of living comfortably, as well as enabling parents to create better lives for their children in a country wonderfully well known for its enduring reverence of equality—the opportunity to accomplish all of these things immeasurably improved my dad’s life.
However, unfortunately, after paying so much into the fund, he died from a heart attack at the age of 67 and was able to enjoy his hard earned benefits for only two short year. But the opportunities that enabled him to improve his life, as well as being considered as having EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, guaranteed him the empowering experience of equality which had been there for him, and which still needs to be there for posterity.
By essentially handing the government over to those with extreme wealth and power, we are making a mockery of the equality and opportunity which this country has promised to all of us—just like it promised my father that he could own a home, purchase the things that he and his family needed, and send his three children on to college, even though he personally attained only an eighth grade education.
My purpose is not to be crass and disrespectful of the law, but to ask The Court if esteemed justices like yourselves might have indulged in some convoluted arguments and specious interpretations of the first amendment that may unjustly harm the power and the rights of ordinary citizens?
Perhaps you have deceived yourselves by focusing myopically on only the letter of the law, rather than acknowledging the more expansive spirit it intends when applied equally to everyone’s power to vote. And, without this equal power behind each individual vote, the free speech of the wealthiest is not really infringed, but rather, the free speech of ordinary citizens is muted.
Money will always be a part of politics, but the least you, I and the public can do, is insist on reasonable limits for campaign funding that, at least to some extent, really does level the playing field. Skewing the ability to vote towards favoring vested interests, is really not much different than allowing them to votes twice for everyone else’s one, or authorizing them to guard the ballot boxes with no one looking, while secretively stuffing them in favor of a preferred candidate. In all of these cases, the law is not offering equal protections for the rights of citizens who are constitutionally guaranteed to equally exercise that vote with just as much affect and power as anyone else.
I am genuinely saddened that your recent rulings seem to have been made without authentic fairness in mind, and without the usually solid moral authority that members of the Supreme Court are expected to impartially render. Not only do rulings like Citizens United and McCutcheon vs.FEC, present the (appearance) of corruption, they absolutely create and enable the existence of REAL AND INDISPUTABLE CORRUPTION—a kind that already pollutes and unduly influences our electoral process.
So please allow me this opportunity to express my feeling that, it is excruciatingly painful to think that our own esteemed Justices sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land may have become so delusional as to not see this clear and obvious mistake!
Peter Johnson is a senior citizen who has become much more interested in what is happening in America and the world, than he was as a young man. He’s interested in poetry and expository writing, and has had letters to the editor published in Time magazine, Newsweek and Playboy magazine. He is concerned about ignorance and indifference that has been circulated concerning the significance of man made global warming and is dismayed dismayed by the way political lies and corruption are being used to influence the public (apparently free from any penalties or adequate culpability). He frequently writes letters of opinion to the editors of his local newspapers.