The Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC has been hailed as a victory for free speech and lamented as a victory for corporate political influence. But no matter how WRTL had come out, candidates would still only be "viable" once they could appeal to wealthy donors and PAC contributors. In other words, middle- and working-class voters would still have little voice in choosing candidates and prioritizing issues. One dollar one vote is not democracy; it's plutocracy, and it's hurting the non-rich in America.

Eighty percent of campaign money is hard money, which is non-corporate money that goes directly or though PACs to candidates, political parties, or express advocacy. Although hard money is technically non-corporate, corporations can establish a "separate segregated fund," called a PAC (Political Action Committee), solicit donations from stockholders and employees, "bundle" all these contributions, and donate them directly to a candidate or party. The numbers for hard money in 2006 (a non-presidential year) are astounding: finance and credit card companies contributed $6.9 million; oil and gas gave $19 million; pharmaceuticals "spoke" with $19.3 million; and insurance companies, just for good measure, kicked in another $30.7 million. Less than one percent of the population gave 86% of this money in 2006. Those who can give these amounts determine which candidates can run, which issues are "issues," and how candidates will approach those issues that may adversely affect their contributors. Congress has answered to this constituency in bankruptcy, health insurance, and student loans (although, in reaction to the recent scandal, Congress may pass some corrective, albeit modest, legislation on loans). In so doing, it has often produced results -- in all of these areas (see here and here) -- that dramatically diverge from what a majority of Americans would prefer. (See also Jacob Hacker's excellent book, Off Center).

What is to be done? In short, some version of public financing that frees politicians from dependence on the wealthy. Jon Bonifaz and Jamin Raskin have proposed that all candidates meeting certain minimum requirements receive public money equaling at least the expenditures of their privately funded competitors, while Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers advocate a plan under which every American would get twenty-five "patriot dollars" to donate to candidates. Since, when money talks, it enjoys First Amendment protection, these proposals and others like them would help to actually democratize our elections and compel leaders to serve the economic interests of ordinary Americans.