By Betselot Wondimu ‘15

The growing involvement of money in the American political system is indisputable and startling. In the last five years alone, the Supreme Court has ruled in two landmark cases—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) and McCutcheon v. FEC—to dramatically loosen restrictions in campaign finance policies in a myriad of ways. While the authorization of unlimited super political action committee (super PAC) spending and the barring of total federal campaign contribution limits do little to strengthen the voice of the majority of the country, the opinions of the wealthiest Americans grow more amplified and unrivaled.

“Limiting the amount of money a person may give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication,” stated Justice Clarence Thomas in an attempt to justify the relaxation of campaign finance laws by the Supreme Court. This news uplifts moneyed individuals nationwide, who realize that they’ll have more opportunities to communicate their political views than the bulk of the country.

Businessman David Koch, who has donated over $400 million to conservative politicians directly through campaign contributions and indirectly through several conservative coalitions in 2012, and other fat-cats are probably still celebrating. Koch’s generous donations to congressmen undoubtedly coerced them into supporting irrational policies that support his manufacturing and agricultural corporations’ economic success—such as bills that deny irrefutable evidence of climate change.

Since elections are largely determined by the amount of money candidates have to spend on advertisements, mail and polling, politicians will unfortunately accept these huge donations quickly at the expense of the constituents that actually voted them into office. Even with this evident cycle of corruption (money for favorable policy), “freedom of speech” in the form of unlimited campaign contributions is still permitted as the law of the land.

With the logic that is in use today, it’s depressingly easy and believable to imagine wealthy individuals such as Koch saying “Of course money embodies the right to free speech. I was simply born with more rights than the average person.”

The Supreme Court has maintained its recent decisions as defending the freedom of speech of American citizens. But is the court really acting in good faith when only the wealthiest individuals in a country, who already have overwhelming advantages over average citizens, are able to enjoy that freedom? Corruption in politics is in no way a new concept in history, but it has reached an unprecedented level.