Ten little words, seven of which are single syllable, fairly simple, and still the subject of heated political debate recently stoked by the Supreme Court.  Ten words I would like to have tattooed, in reverse for mirror gazing, on the foreheads of Russ Feingold, John McCain, Barack Obama, along with the 4 dissenters.

The fallout form the recent SCOTUS decision to enforce the constitutional right to free speech has all the usual suspects making all the usual suspect claims. Those who disagree with the courts decision, who I like to call free speech opponents, are renewing their fear mongering that there will a tsunami of money flowing into politics corrupting the system.  To which a casual observer might ask, and that would be different how?  These same folks already whine about too much money in politics, a specious claim at best since, according to George Will, who I am loathe to second-guess, advises that the amount of money spent on the last, most expensive general election ever, is roughly equal to that of what Americans spend on potato chips per year.  Snack on that.

It’s not about the amount, it’s about the transparency.  I find no inconsistency with the right to free speech in a law that would require full disclosure of every penny donated to every candidate.  The web offers the perfect tool for such transparency and a free and open society, as ours is alleged to be, should embrace the opportunity to shed light on the deepest, arguably darkest corners of our political process.  Divulge how much, to whom, from whom, and let the voters figure out whether it's kosher or not. But instead we get statist political careerists, but I repeat myself, promising to design new routes around the ruling and retrofit speech controls back into law. So much for that oath of office thing.  Opponents of the first amendment, like their counterparts on the second amendment, are always about limiting someone else's rights and never about enforcing the plain text. 

There are a couple of other curiosities about the debate.  First, the predictable changing of the subject.  Somehow the ruling has been reduced/transformed from an enforcement of the first amendment question to whether corporations should be allowed a voice in politics.  Why should’t they?  Corporations are made up of people, a group who, by common investment, are exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble.  When corporate heads decide to advocate politically it should be at the behest and in the best interest of their investors. People invest in corporations to make money, not political advocacy, which they can do much more effectively on their own.  If they don’t like who the corporation endorses they can and should dump the stock.

Transparency will show that overly generous corporations are trying to gain a legislative or policy advantage for their product or service.  Astute business analysts and investors need to tune in to the idea that corporate/political system-gaming obfuscates that a corporations good or service must have shortcomings if they have to rely on legislative advantage to compete.  Of course a curious media shining a light on these connections would be helpful, if they too weren't corporations seeking their own advantages.  Look for an increasing role by the alternative media in this regard.    

To allow the government any control over any political message is to stand the right of free speech on its head. I can’t be the only guy to notice this debate hardly ever includes the recipients responsibility in the roll of political donations.  They are, after all, the ones who finally decide whether to accept or return those nasty donations.  Political careerists who advocate for government control over political speech are admitting that they are incapable of making those decisions.  Sorry folks, if you can't make that call your judgment on everything is suspect.  Find another line of work.         

I also find it a rather bizarre disconnect that those so dedicated to abridging the speech of corporations would never dream of not taxing them. Muzzling an entity on one hand while taxing them with the other is about as stark of an example of taxation without representation as you are likely to find.  In what other arena than government would the concept of a mute payer even exist?   With every transaction, even the payment of taxes, there is an implied warranty and assumption of good faith.  The assumption with taxes is that it is for your benefit but also that, as the financier, you have a voice in determining what those benefits should be.  I’m no constitutional expert like the President but it looks to me like taking money and then passing laws limiting the payers ability to comment infringes the right to redress grievances as well.

In the end the libertarian credo that the best thing for free speech is more, not less, speech.  It is up to the individual listener to decide, tune in, turn off, or refute what they decide to hear - - not the governments which is steadily becoming the mother of all special interests.