Simplicity Applies (And What a Beautiful Thing It Is!)

I refuse to believe that simplicity is a term rendered obsolete in our increasingly complex and interconnected political atmosphere. And I say this not because I chose to see the world in black and white, or because I have a "supremacist" attitude toward individual circumstance - I say this because I understand the difference between idealism and fundamentalism.


Take, for instance, the recent decision reached in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission: that "[there is] no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers" (Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 25 2010).


After reading the opinion of the Court, I have discerned a few main points to keep in mind:


1.) Corporations are privy to the same protection of free speech under the First Amendment as any individual citizen.


2.) It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the law.


3.) Limiting speech under any circumstance is censorship.


4.) "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 23).


5.) "Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints... The government may not ... deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each" (Citizens United vs FEC 558 U.S. 24).



Going back to my introduction, we must first differentiate between idealism and fundamentalism, and establish an arena for each.

Idealists perceive the world under vastly hopeful premises. They believe that there is an ultimate good, and that we must work to achieve this good. In terms of the Citizens United case, idealists see the decision reached by the Court as backwards and ultimately threatening to achieving said greater good (i.e. equality).

N.B.: I am not at all convinced that equality can be achieved by governmental prescription. Ultimately, there are two opposing views on what equality truly means:

• Leftists have argued for years that equality boils down to economic terms - that diminishing the gap between the classes will by some means ensure equality, and that forcefully inducting each citizen into programs of universal health care, welfare, and social security will guarantee a "level playing-field" for all.


• Classic liberals hold that equality entails the freedom of choice first established through economic liberty, ultimately ending in personal liberty. They posit that equality is the condition of free will whereby each individual can choose for him/herself what to do, where to go, how much to spend etc.

Now, fundamentalists always base reasoning on some established charter, using values, rules, and norms set forth to determine validity. In the Citizens United case, the validity of the argument is based on the fundamental values set forth in the Constitution.

And here is where simplicity applies.

The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitutionality of the law. There is no room for personal translation of what the founding fathers could have possibly meant 200 years in the future. The Constitution is an eloquent demonstration in the beauty that comes from pure simplicity. It is vague enough to allow for change in the political climate, while simultaneously specific enough to answer any question relating to American governance.

The Supreme Court recognized (in this decision) that the issue at hand could not possibly be answered on a case by case premise. This would be highly complex. Instead, they determined that the First Amendment both sufficiently and poignantly resolves the fundamental question involved: Is money spending a provision of free speech and as such, can government limit corporate spending under Constitutional terms?

The Supreme Court ruling says yes to the former and no to the latter. Yes, corporations as private entities are to be protected under the First Amendment; yes, the monetary decisions of such private corporations should be left to the companies themselves; and no, government does not have the right to limit (or cap) how much money is spent, certainly in political campaigning, where free speech is to be protected especially.

And finally, in preparation for the GRE's, I leave you with this question:

Are shareholders:corporations :: citizens:government?

My answer is yes - and just as private companies are the conglomerate sum of their shareholders, so too is government the aggregate of its citizens. Think about this next time you hear that corporations have no rights...