Wealth Inequality and Democratic Legitimacy
ore than just economic jurisprudence predicated on the right to free speech, Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010) has vast impacts on the individual lives of Americans. This specific case has influential ramifications, but it is not the authorization of corporate money to infiltrate politics it was feared to be. Corporate spending has remained relatively unchanged since 2010. However, states where political expenditure laws were impacted saw a doubling of the median range of campaign expenditures by individuals not connected to a particular candidate. Citizens United is not the first of its kind, but the mere face of a long line of Supreme Court decisions returning power to the wealthy. It is the most salient example of neoliberal jurisprudence redefining democracy as a free market of political goods. The Court deems that Citizens United will not cause the public to “lose faith in democracy.” However, “[w]hat matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are and whether they are negative.”
Political philosophy has a unique place in a discussion based in economics. Intuitive knowledge can have profound insights into the economic issues of today, “especially about the deep structure of inequality, the way it is justified, and its impact on individual lives.” Citizens United is the invisible hand at play, but not in the way Adam Smith imagined it in Wealth of Nations. Rather than the hidden forces of individuals’ agency moderating the market, Citizens United allows for wealth individuals to tip the scales in their favor. Wealth has undue control over democracy. It is the state giving power to the wealthy under the guise of free speech. Those with disposable income to spend on political expenditures can promote politicians that align with their values or will at the very least protect their interests while in office.
Citizens United blurs the line between wealth and speech, and in doing so, money gains legitimacy as a form of political expression. Economic power is already fungible, but through rulings that enhance the ability of the wealthy to influence politics, economic power becomes political power. Karl Marx outlines wealth’s ability to effect areas outside of economics as “Money… cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other commodities.” Political expenditures are money expressing its value as speech and political capital. All these advancements (or regressions) have been no accident but the result of a much larger transition into neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the political philosophy based on economic principles of the free market. The majority opinion of the case claims unlimited independent expenditures do not increase real or perceived corruption in politics. Citizens United is the mechanization of neoliberal principles into campaign financing. Although the Court posits that unlimited independent expenditures are not quid pro quo corruption, it allows for those with access to wealth to have a greater access to politics and by extension our democracy.
More than just economic jurisprudence predicated on the right to free speech, Citizens United v. F.E.C. (2010) has vast impacts on the individual lives of Americans. This specific case has influential ramifications, but it is not the authorization of corporate money to infiltrate politics it was feared to be. Corporate spending has remained relatively unchanged since 2010. However, states where political expenditure laws were impacted saw a doubling of the median range of campaign expenditures by individuals not connected to a particular candidate. Citizens United is not the first of its kind, but the mere face of a long line of Supreme Court decisions returning power to the wealthy. It is the most salient example of neoliberal jurisprudence redefining democracy as a free market of political goods. The Court deems that Citizens United will not cause the public to “lose faith in democracy.” However, “[w]hat matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are and whether they are negative.”
Political philosophy has a unique place in a discussion based in economics. Intuitive knowledge can have profound insights into the economic issues of today, “especially about the deep structure of inequality, the way it is justified, and its impact on individual lives.” Citizens United is the invisible hand at play, but not in the way Adam Smith imagined it in Wealth of Nations. Rather than the hidden forces of individuals’ agency moderating the market, Citizens United allows for wealth individuals to tip the scales in their favor. Wealth has undue control over democracy. It is the state giving power to the wealthy under the guise of free speech. Those with disposable income to spend on political expenditures can promote politicians that align with their values or will at the very least protect their interests while in office.
Citizens United blurs the line between wealth and speech, and in doing so, money gains legitimacy as a form of political expression. Economic power is already fungible, but through rulings that enhance the ability of the wealthy to influence politics, economic power becomes political power. Karl Marx outlines wealth’s ability to effect areas outside of economics as “Money… cannot express the magnitude of its value except relatively in other commodities.” Political expenditures are money expressing its value as speech and political capital. All these advancements (or regressions) have been no accident but the result of a much larger transition into neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the political philosophy based on economic principles of the free market. The majority opinion of the case claims unlimited independent expenditures do not increase real or perceived corruption in politics. Citizens United is the mechanization of neoliberal principles into campaign financing. Although the Court posits that unlimited independent expenditures are not quid pro quo corruption, it allows for those with access to wealth to have a greater access to politics and by extension our democracy.
