The Frightening Reality

It is popular opinion that campaign finance reform is likely necessary, but the courts disagreed. Let's take a look at why they did.

It is argued that limiting the speech of the corporation is impeaching "their" freedom of speech, and by "their" I refer to the corporation. The issue at hand here is corporate person-hood.

What bothers me is that a corporation, though granted all of the freedoms of The Constitution, are not subject to its regulation. Simply put, they receive the rights without concern for their responsibilities. It is easy to allow a corporation to speak, but it marginalizes public voice.

Ideally, I believe it should be the right of the corporation to speak, but in a representative democracy like our own, all speech must be created equal. Our democracy will face dire circumstances when money becomes the main medium for speech, and I fear that it is already becoming so.

It is idyllic to think that corporate power should be allowed for speech, but it is interesting to note that false advertisement laws do not pertain to political speech. I.E: It would be easy for Exxon Mobil to sponsor an oil-drilling candidate and say s/he was "environmentally friendly," without having to face the music of a federal regulator, because political speech is protected.

Getting back to the main point, when money becomes speech, the voice of the meek goes unfunded, in turn, going unnoticed. It is this frightening reality that allows corporate person-hood to control our political system, increasing apathy of constituencies.

The voice of the people is silenced through corporate speech, and surely threatens a representative democracy like our own, especially when our representatives are products of corporate speech in and of themselves.