Wealth Inequality 和 Democratic Legitimacy
ore than just economic jurisprudence predicated on the right to free speech, 联合公民. 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. 然而, states where political expenditure laws were impacted saw a doubling of the median range of campaign expenditures by individuals not connected to a particular c和idate. 联合公民 这不是第一次吗, 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. 本院认为 联合公民 will not cause the public to “lose faith in democracy.“然而, “[w]hat matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are 和 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, 这种方式是合理的, 以及它对个人生活的影响.” 联合公民 is the invisible h和 at play, but not in the way Adam Smith imagined it in 国富论. Rather than the hidden forces of individuals’ agency moderating the market, 联合公民 allows for wealth individuals to tip the scales in their favor. 财富过度地控制了民主. 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.
联合公民 模糊了财富和言论之间的界限, 这样做的时候, money gains legitimacy as a form of political expression. 经济实力已经是可替代的, but through rulings that enhance the ability of the wealthy to influence politics, 经济实力变成了政治实力. 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 和 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 腐败 in politics. 联合公民 is the mechanization of neoliberal principles into campaign financing. Although the Court posits that unlimited independent expenditures are not 交换条件 腐败, it allows for those with access to wealth to have a greater access to politics 和 by extension our democracy.
More than just economic jurisprudence predicated on the right to free speech, 联合公民. 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. 然而, states where political expenditure laws were impacted saw a doubling of the median range of campaign expenditures by individuals not connected to a particular c和idate. 联合公民 这不是第一次吗, 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. 本院认为 联合公民 will not cause the public to “lose faith in democracy.“然而, “[w]hat matters is not whether or not this is legitimate in terms of law, but what its effects are 和 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, 这种方式是合理的, 以及它对个人生活的影响.” 联合公民 is the invisible h和 at play, but not in the way Adam Smith imagined it in 国富论. Rather than the hidden forces of individuals’ agency moderating the market, 联合公民 allows for wealth individuals to tip the scales in their favor. 财富过度地控制了民主. 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.
联合公民 模糊了财富和言论之间的界限, 这样做的时候, money gains legitimacy as a form of political expression. 经济实力已经是可替代的, but through rulings that enhance the ability of the wealthy to influence politics, 经济实力变成了政治实力. 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 和 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 腐败 in politics. 联合公民 is the mechanization of neoliberal principles into campaign financing. Although the Court posits that unlimited independent expenditures are not 交换条件 腐败, it allows for those with access to wealth to have a greater access to politics 和 by extension our democracy.