Last week marked the fifty-year anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision enshrining the absurd idea that money in politics is not corruption, but constitutionally protected speech.
As the Lever unearthed in our recent audio series and book Master Plan, that once-radical concept was pioneered by soon-to-be federal judge Ralph Winter and a young John Bolton in a booklet for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) — and the ill-fated Buckley v. Valeo case was bankrolled in part by GOP mega-influencer and donor Charles Koch.
Since that decision — which provided the foundation of the subsequent Citizens United decision opening up the floodgate to unlimited corporate meddling in US elections — the United States has experienced a half-century of oligarchs, corporations, and master planners buying elections, politicians, public policy, regulations, and basically everything else at every level of government.
The one small piece of good news on this depressing topic is that amid such endemic corruption, most Americans now understand that the Buckley decision’s “money is speech” doctrine is ridiculous, and very few Americans believe that buying elections is a First Amendment right, according to new polling data from Ipsos and American Promise.
Fewer than one in five Americans believe that “spending unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns” is an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment. So yes, the electorate understands how fraudulent the money-is-speech legal fiction really is.
Despite that public outcry, this may still be the master planners’ moment thanks to two current cases — including one originally spearheaded by Vice President J. D. Vance — designed to give John Roberts’s Supreme Court the opportunity to go even further than the Citizens United decision.
But all is not lost, even if Washington, DC, is right now. There is still plenty of…
Auteur: David Sirota
