Minority Rule Is The Answer.

       Here's a question I can't quite figure out. Why do the federal Election Commission and the Supreme Court both equate free speech with money? How does money provide the right to free speech? Does one million dollars provide more free speech that ten dollars? Should it be allowed to provide more free speech? Does it buy more influence?
       The law stipulates one man, one vote. That's fine, but it doesn't stipulate one free speech for one man. That's silly. Candidates would be limited  to one speech too. Come to think of it, that might be a real blessing. But maybe there should be a price set on a free speech. Say $2600. Come to think of it there is such a law. But then that law was made meaningless by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United, allowing corporations and the wealthy to give any amount they want to PACs. Does anyone think that a million dollar donation to a candidate's favorite PAC would be less influential than a direct donation to that candidate?
       So if exceptionally large donations to PACs by corporations are potentially more influential than a private citizen's $2600 or $10, is that fair? The only disadvantage to the corporation is that as a 'person' it can't vote as many times as it wants. After all, it can give as much money as it wants, why shouldn't it be allowed to vote as many times as it wants? Gosh, it can't vote at all. You don't suppose that allowing corporations to donate all they want is compensation for not being allowed to vote at all, do you?
       I understand the problem with the Federal Election Commission. It's made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. There's no majority or minority. There's no benefit to any member in rocking the boat. But the Supreme Court has no fear. They can't be replaced easily and there is a majority and minority. That's how we got into such a mess in this country in the first place. Maybe Congress has the right idea after all. Minority rules.