The decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case has made a mockery of the notion of “free speech” by allowing money spent on behalf of a political candidate to be labeled such.
The evidence is in front of our eyes as the spending of nearly $300 million by the world’s richest man to sway the 2024 election toward Trump and then Musk blatantly claiming that fact as true. He stated in a tweet that Trump would not be president without the help he extended. So, what exactly was that help beyond the money funneled through his political action committee? The fact that all seven swing states seem to have statistical anomalies in their vote tallies raises questions.
Certainly, the only way we as a nation will survive as a democracy depends on us eliminating the undue influence of money in the political process. We are well past the time when questions about corporate money in politics should be answered by Congress with a resounding “no.”
We can have a democracy or we can have an oligarchy. As long as the spending of money is equated with all free speech, any voice belonging to the people will be muted by the unlimited money spent by the rich.
Corporations cannot vote so why should they be allowed to exploit election laws; in fact, the larger question should be, why should corporate or foreign entities with no voting privileges be allowed to participate in the American electoral process at all?
David Black
Bayfield
