On Wednesday, the Supreme Court eliminated restrictions on how much money individuals can donate to election campaigns during two-year cycles. While it is still illegal to donate over $5,200 to a single politician's campaign, potential donors can now give money to unlimited numbers of campaigns across the country. The maximum amount had previously been capped at $48,000 in total donations. Conservatives have hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech, but critics are concerned that extremely wealthy contributors may now have even more political sway during elections than they already do. What do you think about this ruling?

*

David Clements '14

The Supreme Court's decision marks a step in the wrong direction for America and the democratization of the electoral process. The court's understanding that money equals speech is not only dumbfounded, but is also misguided and counterproductive to free speech. By equating money with speech, the court essentially establishes that those with more money have more speech. This decision not only empowers the super-wealthy to continue to dominate national politics, but also marginalizes those who cannot afford to give thousands-and even millions-of dollars to campaigns. The issue of free speech must be understood with the pretense that one's influence should be determined by the merit of one's ideas alone. While wealth can certainly amplify a message, it by no means shall be the determinant of the merit of one's ideas. Consequently, by equating money with speech, the court legitimizes a practice that is not only full of corruption, but also marginalizes the input and influence of a majority of Americans. After all, money doesn't equal speech; money equals money.

David Clements '14 is the Student Union chief of staff. 

*

Nelson Gilliat '14

Campaign finance would be neither a moral nor legal problem-if we had a proper government, strictly limited to the protection of individual rights (life, liberty, property) via the courts, police and military. That way, individual rights could not be voted away by the tyranny of the majority, or sold to the highest bidder. The existence of lobbyists and special interests who buy influence, presupposes a government that sells individual rights for some unspecified collective goal, be it the public interest, public safety, or the common good. Since nobody's rights are safe under such a system, special interests, both to protect themselves and to get benefits they could not otherwise achieve voluntarily, lobby politicians in order to influence legislation and attain some special favor, privilege, exemption, contract, or subsidy. 

Nelson Gilliat '14 is the president of Brandeis Libertarians.

*

Daniel Koas '16

Money continues to be poured into American elections at astronomical rates, and the recent decision by the Supreme Court to loosen limitations on big political donors has paved the path for even more monetary influence in our political system. By allowing a tiny sliver of the nation's wealthiest citizens to have even more sway than they did before, the Supreme Court is both potentially corrupting campaigns and silencing the voices of the other 99 percent of the country. While the argument that money is equivalent to speech is tempting, the fact of the matter is that money is merely a way to fund and amplify speech; it helps individuals express themselves, but does not carry the same power as a vote. In fact, by allowing billionaires to drown out the voices of other Americans, the Supreme Court is actually undermining the intentions that the framers expressed in the First Amendment of allowing all voices to be heard and establishing America as an open marketplace for ideas to be shared. Though the playing field can never be truly level, our government should be taking steps to protect the voices and rights of the people, not giving them away to the wealthiest few.

Daniel Koas '16 is an American Studies major.

*

Catherine Rosch '16

While I can't say that I'm surprised by the Roberts Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, I am very disappointed by the ruling. By getting rid of maximum donations an individual can give to a party, the Supreme Court is essentially equating money and speech as being the same thing. This dangerous precedent not only favors wealthier Americans over the rest of the population but could also potentially be used to justify getting rid of any campaign finance limits. Money and speech are not equivalent and should not be treated as such. There is already way too much money in politics. This ruling will only allow money to play a bigger role and does not benefit the majority of Americans. I do not support McCutcheon and I hope Congress is able to pass legislation to limit money in politics.

Catherine Rosch '16 is the legislative affairs coordinator in Brandeis Democrats.