U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is not afraid of controversy, which is a good thing. The junior senator from Texas is not afraid to shake things up, which is a rarity in Washington. Despite his recent entrance into national politics, it appears likely that Cruz will be among the many Republicans to throw his hat into the 2016 presidential ring. He is not alone among the firebrands, though: Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Scott Walker are all outspoken Republicans who are willing to talk tough. Marco Rubio, the young U.S. Senator from Florida, is also outspoken, but more in terms of “big ideas” than “tough talk.”
But even among this outspoken Republican crowd, Cruz has found a way to get people talking yet again. Cruz wants to end all limits on campaign finance, likening political spending to free speech, reports TIME. In his argument, Cruz claimed that political spending was analogous to putting a political-based sign in one’s front yard. Currently, the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) places firm limits on many types of political contributions. In 2014, however, limits were removed on total contributions that donors could make, meaning that wealthy political donors can now give the maximum amount to all candidates of his or her political persuasion, nationwide.
Cruz evidently wants to remove the cap on contributions to individual candidates, meaning that rich donors could fully fund politicians’ campaigns with single deposits. If billionaires already spend tens of millions on mega-yachts, how much would they sink into political campaigns whose insiders promised them the candidate’s ear? While loopholes to campaign finance limits do exist, and are undoubtedly exploited, removing the limits will open additional floodgates of money to political candidates. This is wrong and is undemocratic. It is also not analogous to free speech.
Free speech is a right because it can be exercised without resources and does not compel or limit others. Rich or poor, your freedom of expression is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Political speech, however, is not free. It is directed and can unfairly compel or limit others. We created the Constitution to prevent tyranny of the majority…we must also recognize the possibility of tyranny of monopoly.
The wealthy can monopolize political and governmental authority by further entrenching their interests with those of money-seeking political candidates. When a wealthy CEO, industrialist, or heir can entirely bankroll a congressional, gubernatorial, or even presidential campaign, can we pretend that the benefactor will not receive special treatment? This is especially true when the politician is not term-limited. A U.S. Senator can remain in office indefinitely, desiring the benefactor’s blank checks every six years. To get that check, he or she will try to curry favor by supporting policies that benefit the benefactor.
We must either universalize term limits…or limit campaign contributions. Otherwise, democracy becomes an oligarchy run by a relatively small group of wealthy political donors. Politicians will not bother to appeal to the masses for contributions if they can dominate the airwaves (and other waves) by appealing to a handful of one-percenters. The amount of clout one must have to get real face-time with a politician will drastically increase, crowding out common citizens. This was not the democracy envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Money is not speech because money crowds out the speech of others in a way that speech alone cannot. Free and equitable speech requires ideas to compete. Unequitable speech, which is the result of unlimited campaign contributions, results in a lack of competition in terms of ideas. This loss of competition is antithetical to our free market economy and democratic system of governance. It will lead to inefficiency and autocracy.
