Unrestricted sums of money given to political candidates cannot be considered free speech if the ability to speak in the same manner and level of access of the majority of citizens is impossible, and the unaffordable speech of the masses attempting to express ideas is made valueless to our candidates and irrelevant. This is not freedom despite the warped perspective of Republican dispensers of empty and non reasonable rhetoric and evidence less economic hypothesis. It is the legal corruption of the tool of democracy. It is definitely a form of oppression of the masses. Now all the masses of the United States have left is their anger, their ideology, their philosophies. Precious things thought to be protected by the first amendment, thought so by James Madison when he wrote it. Money and it's spending in political campaigns was not a concern of the founders, read on.
It is time we give something kind to the American voter which also ensures democracy as a sound government structure we can all trust, for the first time in our history. It is time that every vote really did count - but not just every vote, every person whether he or she chooses to vote or not. A thing the founders never thought would be necessary.
The founders were men who foresaw that only white land owning and merchant men would be voting and that campaign funding would never be an issue due to it's largesse because that scenario was unfortunately, not conceived of. Because, campaigning at the time involved free activities like letter writing to newspapers, speaking publicly and so forth. Our constitution lacks the following seemingly as if by purpose but more likely due to eighteenth century ignorance and an innocent narrow view (normal for it's time) of what the future might be: no mention of any limits or ceilings on campaign money that could be raised by candidates and sitting politicians. No mentions of who or what controls that purse/bank. No restrictions of from who, from what interests, from conflicting interests. No mention of who keeps the money after a campaign. This absence must have been noticed when a conservative Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative for Citizens United vs. the United States.The Super Pacs now born of that decision will make democracy further and further from representative to us all. A point not understood by the conservative court.
We have proven beyond a doubt that our current electoral campaign finance system mostly does not work for anyone but the wealthy. This inequity is why United States representative democracy has never truly been in place. If you think that historically what works well for the wealthy, works well for you in the long run, then you may not agree with this solution.
"The greatest moral question which now confronts us is: Shall the trusts and corporations be prevented from contributing money to control or aid in controlling elections?"
-Defeated Presidential candidate Judge Alton Parker, 1904.
Keep in mind successful Constitutional amendments are not ruled unconstitutional except by another amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is not damaged by Public Campaign Financing. The goal of representative democracy is shared and more fairly distributed, rendering the political speech concept of our free speech more representative and so more powerful than before.
If public funding of election campaigns is somehow unconstitutional then since 1976 checking a box on your income tax return that gives $1-2 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, is also unconstitutional. Because that is nothing more than what Public Campaign Financing does, it's our government managing and collecting a fund for election campaigns specifically. So, prove that philosophy unconstitutional.
The clarion call out of the windows of our homes should be "It's my money and I want my politician back!"