The Constitution of the United States of America properly begins with the words "We the People."
The "people" should rule. Not any corporations, unions, other organizations or combinations should have the power to choose - or thwart - the will of the "people."
Only people are "citizens" with the right to vote. The people should exercise their Constitution-protected "freedom of speech" in their home districts and in their respective states to elect their local and national representatives, senators and president.
But as our nation has expanded to become a country of more than 305 million people, living in a vast geographic area from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, from Canada to Mexico, and including distant Alaska and Hawaii, our elections have become very complex - and, lamentably, very expensive.
It is unfortunate that in our democratic processes, "money talks," often too decisively in some elections.
It is proper for individual citizens - "we the people" - to contribute money as part of our exercise of "freedom of speech" in the choice of officials. But our laws have properly prohibited organizations, such as corporations and labor unions, from making direct financial contributions to candidates and has limited their "help" in other ways. The purpose has been to prevent huge concentrations of money from "buying" officials, thus potentially overruling "we the people" and corrupting government.
Unfortunately, there have been many devices by which this sound prohibition has been "run around," allowing money to have too much improper power in our political decisions.
In an effort to minimize undesirable concentrations of economic power, Congress wisely has enacted laws to ban direct partisan political contributions by corporations and unions to specific candidates. Congress is the proper branch of our federal government to make such determinations.
But this week, five justices of the United States Supreme Court have made a dangerous mistake by ruling that corporations may potentially spend millions of dollars in ways to influence the elections of our officials, although the five justices would leave in effect the prohibition of direct corporation or union contributions to specific candidates.
Ironically, this highly troubling and improper ruling, which dilutes the power of "we the people" and gives great power wrongly to corporations and unions, has been made by a 5-4 Supreme Court "conservative" majority!
The majority justices left intact parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibit corporations and unions from direct financial contributions to candidates. However, the court struck down the bans on unions or corporations publishing issue ads in the closing days of political campaigns and spending money directly on ads urging the defeat or election of candidates.
"We the people" should have the complete power of speech and finance in the election campaigns of our officials - with corporations and unions being prohibited from exercising potentially decisive influence in elections.
The astoundingly wrong decision by the five conservative Supreme Court justices is a terrible threat to "government of, by and for the people," and allows improper concentration and exercise of power by organizations.
Because of this Supreme Court ruling, we need - but unfortunately have little prospect of enacting - a constitutional amendment to assure that only "we the people" have the effective power of financing and thus determining the outcomes of our elections.