Survival in the Gig Economy
Freedom from the nine-to-five or another form of exploitation? The gig economy is both!
Book gives you the truth about about what to expect and helps you make a plan when nothing is predictable.
Freedom from the nine-to-five or another form of exploitation? The gig economy is both!
Book gives you the truth about about what to expect and helps you make a plan when nothing is predictable.
How do you know when money is a bribe or when it constitutes “speech?” All of us know that bribes are illegal and speech is a constitutional right. So, of course, we would be able to recognize one from the other. However, if we start to think about it, we begin to see how complex and muddled such a distinction can be. Indeed, Congress and the Supreme Court periodically wrestle with this issue, and they apparently still haven’t got it right.
The obscene amounts of money spent on political campaigns benefit three primary interest groups: (1) the wealthy; (2) incumbents, and (3) broadcast media.
The wealthy often give money to candidates from both major parties in order to insure access to the corridors of power, regardless of who wins. The argument that money is “speech” because it represents an expression of choice does not apply, because here it is used as a guarantee of influence–which looks more like a bribe.
Incumbents can benefit both from unlimited campaign money (which tends to favor the status quo) as well as regulatory reforms, which often make it more difficult for challengers to compete. There is an obvious foxes-in-charge-of-the-henhouse problem when political incumbents are writing the rules of the next election.
Broadcast media shares an interest in keeping the cash pipelines open for bigger spend on political advertising, although they might not necessarily favor a specific candidate or concern about particular policy issues. But broadcast media organizations are keenly concerned with freedom of speech, and they usually maintain an army of First Amendment legal experts to challenge anything that might threaten it. Which can be a good thing for the rest of us, so long it is really speech they want to protect and not simply their own profits.
Most of the rest of us–who may donate to a local candidate who we know or send the occasional $10 or $25 to an advocacy organization–rightly assume that these laws will never affect us personally. Yet, we have this nagging feeling that the current system of pay-to-play has drowned our own voices and concerns from the policy agenda. We find ourselves working harder for less, our air and water become more polluted, and our public infrastructure (schools, roads, any free spaces for people to gather) is either crumbling or being sold off for private profiteering. We want something to be done to insure the voices of We the People are heard.
We know that no law will ever solve the problem of money in politics. Indeed, after every cycle of legislative reform, Big Money always finds a way around it. We propose that we can address this problem without assaulting the First Amendment. First, abolish the doctrine of corporate personhood–which was established on the flimsiest of rationales. Second, is to increase the transparency of campaign dollars. Provide free and accessible information that lets everyone know who is funding who (candidates) and what (legislation). Third, is to increase pathways for citizen input and participation.
These suggestions–like the previous thousands of pages of regulations proposed by Congress–are also not likely to completely solve the problem of money in politics. But we need to keep the issue alive so that it at least periodically comes up for debate and stays in the public consciousness. We also should know who owns our officials and who is sponsoring anti-people rules and legislation, so we can make the appropriate decisions when we vote. .
