We The People .........

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to travel to various parts of the world to discuss our political system and American values. During a recent trip, a young student asked me, “How can you call America a democracy when in U.S., corporations are considered people?” He continued, “How can you be a proponent of free speech when speech is based on how much money an individual has?” I was surprised at the knowledge that this young man had about the U.S. In the age of electronic media, information does reach almost every part of the world in an instant.

The student was referring to the Supreme Court decision of 2010 in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. This decision allows unlimited corporate spending for campaigns, ballot questions and referendum votes. This student was also alluding to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley vs Valeo, which determined that the dissemination of money is a form of free speech.

My spontaneous response to the student was that America is a democratic republic, based on a representative form of government. However, to equate free speech with wealth is a misinterpretation of one of our most basic tenets.  Every American has the right to speak, free from persecution and the threat of retribution. With that expectation and the Supreme Court ruling, super PAC’s were formed. In essence, these organizations do have the same free speech rights as individuals. Contrary to what my young friend asserted, the right of free speech is not based on wealth; everyone can speak, vote and contribute as they ‘see fit.’ None-the-less, it takes a huge sum of money to run for office and wealth provides an indisputable advantage. Super PAC’s, with their unbridled ability to pour money into a candidate’s coffers, have been able to exert a major influence on the political process. Forty-seven people account for more 57.1% of the $230 million raised from individual donors, according to a study done by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. This doesn’t mean that we are not a democracy. It does, however, bring into question the Supreme Court’s ruling. As I explained, fortunately, we have checks and balances in our system. In a democracy, when the balance tilts too far in one direction, we see an appropriate shift in the society.

Democracy is an evolving process. A candidate who has unlimited resources has a distinct advantage over an opponent who has to engage in ongoing fund raising. In my opinion, granting individual rights to a corporation is a fundamental error.  The Constitution which says, “We the people…,” does not mean “we the corporations.” The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision demonstrates a conflicted court. Clearly, corporations have a vested interest in supporting candidates who are sympathetic to their cause. To exert undue influence in the form of financial support certainly does not represent the democratic ideal. Therefore, I support a Constitutional amendment that will return the electoral process to the people. As I continue my diplomatic and educational efforts to share the American dream with people from all countries, I remain convinced that our American form of democracy is the greatest system on the earth.

Dr Saud Anwar

South Windsor Town Council