Preece is retired. He lives on a farm in Botetourt County.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United gave corporations the same rights as American citizens by allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. The Supreme Court did this by defining money as free speech.

Does it make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy businesses as free speech when money as free speech buys votes with advertising and obligates leaders to serve the source of that money though contributions? Does it even make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy individual citizens as free speech when, again, money as free speech buys votes and politicians?

Doesnt money as free speech promote multiple votes for some citizens, and only one vote for others? Doesnt money as free speech defeat the essential idea of democracy? Even if such nonsense made sense, does it make sense for a corporate officer to vote once as himself and a second time as the corporation? Isnt that one man, two votes?

When a voter receives most of the information about a candidate from advertising that has been paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals, such a voters judgement is significantly influenced. The question arises: Does that citizens vote then come from his own judgment or from the intent of the person that paid for the advertising?

When a politician receives most of the money that gets him elected from a particular source, doesnt that obligate him to favor that particular source in his future political judgment? The question arises: Do the future decisions of the politician originate from his authentic judgment or from judgment favoring the money that got him elected?

Amendments to change the U.S. Constitution are provided for in article V of the constitution. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to our countrys living document are called the Bill of Rights. A citizens right to free speech was established by the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It was intended to protect human beings from the power of the state so that they could speak freely, not so that powerful moneyed interest could be allowed to rule the country like kings and oligarchs.

Thanks to an amendment to the Constitution, America has no slaves. Thanks to another amendment, women get to vote. Thanks to yet another amendment, we get to elect our state senators; and we even get to share an alcoholic drink with a friend if we like.

As American citizens, we have the obligation to advance amendments to our Constitution when we perceive that current laws of the land make no sense. Corporations as citizens makes no sense. We the people need to act to change this. The goal of each American citizen, Republican, Democrat or independent, should be to shift the power of citizenship and the vote back to the people of the United States, and that means away from corporations and big money.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, Should I, an ordinary American citizen, simply accept the present reality that I am not rich enough to deserve the right to free speech or the right to vote? Or should I feel enraged that the ideals of American democracy have been perverted?

See the original post here:

Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? - Roanoke Times