Freedom of Speech = Money Talks

Freedom of Speech = Money Talks

Dear Friends:

In the past, there were stringent guidelines in the form of laws which limited the amount of money which corporations and other types of entities could contribute to the campaign fund of a candidate running for elected office. This came about largely as a palliative measure (with at least a few loopholes for those who could afford to be advised by expert counsel) to assuage a fear on the part of the masses that "the candidate who could better afford to dominate the media,"  i.e., the candidate having the wealthiest and most generous supporters, "would be able to 'buy his or her way' into public office, regardless of qualifications.

The public was afraid that the United States, with its middle class, working class, and other tenuously-capitalized groups would be run by a puppet of the wealthy minority. This would be, in effect, a "monetocracy," (a wonderful lingovation on my part), where the notion of majority rule, i.e., a democracy, by the noble and traditional definition of that term, would merely be an illusion...petty appeasement.

Imagine my disappointment when the United States Supreme Court decided (in its wisdom) that campaign contribution limitations were illegal, and unenforceable as a violation of the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. And (get this!), the premise was that these limitations were a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech. I suppose that every sword cuts both ways, or as a friend of mine once said, "Sr. Castle, it is not the law that counts -- it is the way the powerful people interpret it and choose to enforce it. It's just like voting in your country, my friend; it isn't the voting that matters so much as who gets to count the votes." 

In my simplistic view, the result, in sum, will be thus:

More Money = More 'Free' Speech

More Money = Louder Speech

More Money = More Electoral Power

As Uncle Rudy once said, "The wealthiest will elect all of the officials. It'll be 'government by the rich and for the rich'."

For a fellow with only a sixth-grade education, Rudy was amazing. He could see through the smoky haze of fancy words, avoid stepping on poop in any given pasture (he had an impeccable sense of smell), and predict the future. If Rudy were still alive, I'd want him in high office.

I don't believe that money is evil, or that wealth is to be sneered at. Money is a tool, or a weapon, just like a claw hammer. It can be used to build a house or to crush an outstretched arm. It's just that some people are giving money a bad name.

Faithfully,

Douglas Castle

p.s. When did the term "free" etymologically evolve into "so expensive that only an exclusive few can afford it" ?

p.p.s. Who was that nice lady who said something along the lines of "...then let them eat cake!" She was probably trying to be clever. She eventually lost her head, quite literally. Come to think of it, I should be a little less clever and a bit more like Uncle Rudy.


Douglas Castle - LinkedIn Profile
Follow Castle on Twitter 





Published by THE NATIONAL NETWORKER Newsletter. All rights reserved. Subscribe Free, and get your BLUE TUESDAY REPORT, too. - Click HERE.
The National Networker Companies