McCutcheon v. FEC is a blow to American democracy.

In the McCutcheon v. FEC decision (download here) the Supreme Court argues that people would be "delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate's accomplishments or disparaging an opponent's character." The decision continues "[m]oney in politics may at times seem repugnant," tolerating speech we don't like is just the price we have to pay for our First Amendment rights. This seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what people are concerned about. No, nobody likes the endless campaign ads, but we're not upset because they're interrupting Dancing with the Stars. The proper conception of the problem that respectfully acknowledges the concerns of ordinary citizens is that unlimited campaign donations as free speech implies that people with more money get a bigger voice. We cannot ignore the embedded moral hazard, i.e,. the perverse incentives that encourage politicians to screen out the masses in favor of a handful of really, really big donor fish. Rather, the Supreme Court argues talk of corruption must be constrained to clear cases of quid pro quo, dollars-for-influence transactions. I'm sure these Justices are not so naive that they don't realize such claims, like perjury, are virtually impossible to prove.

What's most worrisome is how accepting we, collectively, have become of this practice. Enshrined in the court's decision is the argument that the current aggregate limit on campaign contributions from individuals to candidates ($48,600) allows individuals to contribute the per-candidate maximum of $5,200 to a mere nine candidates! According to data acquired by OpenSecrets (cited at FiveThirtyEight), this deeply unfair limitation on free speech applies to fewer than 600 people. Setting all the high-sounding legal philosophical debate aside for a moment, why are the Supreme Court's priorities such that they are willing to gamble with the liberty of hundreds of millions, for fear that one of these precious few 600 should be denied the opportunity to buy themselves entire legislatures? I argue that this is because this kind of corruption goes well beyond quid pro quo. In politics--as in most everything--priorities follow money. Money has the power to set priorities, by "taking something all the way to the Supreme Court!" Could you do that if you felt your rights weren't respected? No, because you don't have money, and as long as money is equated with free speech nobody will have time to listen to you. Competition ensures that those who attempt to defy this rule lose out to those who heed it. Natural selection.

This 5-4 decision (along party lines) is yet another blow to the integrity of American democracy. It's a hack from the most undemocratic branch of government (by design) that shifts the allegiances from the (by design) most democratic branch of government away from their popular constituencies to a small club of landed patricians.