Is speech, a fundamental freedom, always free? Not at all. The constitutions, state and national, merely prohibit governments from passing laws abridging freedom of speech. Otherwise, "freedom" works best in the shower. Your speech is always inhibited by your audience and your content. Too much free speech may cost you a relationship. How many of us register Independent to keep personal politics from hostile eyes? Some speech brings on a libel action.
If you want a lot of people to hear your speech, that's money. Election politics pre-technology, as in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, had quite a bit of freedom. Today? Political speech is almost all about money.
Though the First Amendment has usually been treated by the Supreme Court as absolute, one of the anomalies of any "right" is that it can clash, particularly in extreme applications, with other constitutional rights. The Supreme Court usually understands that the values of each right must be balanced, even if it rarely says so. The main problem with the infamous Citizens United case is that the court failed to adequately weigh the conflict between giving unlimited freedom to moneyed speech and the (already frail) right of the people to fair participation in the selection of public officials. This right surely is one on which all other political rights depend.
Politics has become a commercial enterprise. You can stand on a corner in your district and shout but it won't get you far. Sure, door to door has an effect but nobody may be home. If you are invited in, you can't say no but there goes a half hour of campaign time. No point of exaggeration in political campaigning exceeds the boasts of doors knocked. Why? Because we would like politics to be that way.
What to do when 35,000 people live in an election district? Speech in politics needs pamphleteering, door hangers and mail. TV ads, radio spots and signs are a must, now pushing the price of a statewide run into the millions of dollars. With the average voter apparently spending six hours a day watching TV, you can't pass it up even if your message is wasted beyond your district. Then there are the new styles of IT communication, beyond this writer. A serious candidate, even local, needs to hire technical consultants and a manager.
So who do we elect? We elect the men and women who are the most successful fundraisers. Then, when we send them to Washington, they spend half of every day calling to raise cash for the next campaign. Disgusting but true: We are served by skilled fundraisers, not policy experts.
That being the case, it is not surprising that efforts to tamp down the influence of money in politics are met, at most, with lip service, even though ways exist, even in the post-Citizen's United world, to severely limit that influence.
What effect does campaign financing have on officeholders' policy positions? First, there is the balancing act — pleasing both contributors and general voters. The result, since most folks spend very little time on policy questions, is that candidates spend their time and money persuading voters that the (uncited) opinions of contributors are the true public interest.
This political system has led us to the point that a large part of the electorate is confused and angry, and rightfully so. What you think doesn't count. Policies that might benefit the listening citizen are crushed by interests that are special, related to some, usually anonymous, profit line.
In some way, most of us recognize this. That's why Bernie Sanders has scored so well. Trump enjoys some popularity at least because you can see (sort of and so far) where his money comes from.
What to do? Many things are possible besides waiting for a reversal of Citizens United. Force big speech to expose its sources. Big ads should disclose the individuals behind the phony organization, disclosures with the same size print and adequate TV time exposure. Present disclosure laws are flimsy and poorly enforced. Look who's in on the deal this year cutting the Alaska Public Offices Commission budget.
Much more can be done. Stop dollarocracy from replacing the political rights of citizens. Candidates may tell you they have no choice, that's the system. OK, but at least get an admission of urgency and a commitment to fight for change.
John Havelock is a former Alaska attorney general, professor of justice at UAA and an Alaska Dispatch News columnist.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.