The Supreme Court recently decided that campaign finance laws that limited contributions made by corporations violated their constitutional guarantees of free political speech. By striking these laws down, the doors are open for unlimited amounts of corporate dollars to flow into campaigns. Many people are rightly concerned that this would effectively allow large corporations to spend so much money that they could buy the election results that they want, by effectively drowning out all the other voices.

Is there a constitutional way to prevent such an undesirable result, while still allowing corporations unfettered ability to exercise their freedom of speech?

I think so. In fact, I think that there is a way to do so that will actually increase access to effective political speech for everyone.

Here’s how:

Allow unfettered campaign contributions by any person, or corporation, domestic or foreign — but put a 50% tax on all contributions. Those tax receipts then form a public election campaign fund which all candidates in the race can draw from to help them spread their message. So anyone who has money and thinks that their message isn’t getting out, can make a donation to get that message out — but in doing so, they will also be enabling other candidates to get their message out too. This should be especially beneficial for candidates who might otherwise have limited funds and be unable to get out their message. Now it isn’t a question of which campaign has the money to get its message out, but there is actually enough money for a real battle of ideas from all candidates.

How would this work?

Let’s say that I am CEO of a large oil company, perhaps even one headquartered in Europe. I’m concerned that one of the California senate candidates, Al Green, is campaigning on the idea of a Carbon tax that is so onerous to oil companies such as mine that I believe my company’s US profits will be halved if this candidate is elected and this tax is enacted. I believe that in order to keep the trust of my company’s share holders — and to keep my own job — I am going to have to close 50% of the refineries and other marginal operations in California which will no longer be able to cover their cost. I believe that I’ll have to increase prices at the pump at least $0.50 per gallon, and lay off 25,000 employees in California alone. I’m worried that voters may not be aware of how this tax could affect their jobs and their pocketbooks. So I want to donate to the campaign of Red Pacaderm, a candidate that is opposed to a Carbon tax, and sympathetic to businesses such as mine, so he can get out the message of what the effects of such a carbon tax is.

Let’s imagine I contribute $10 million to my favorite candidate, Red Pacaderm. $5 Million of my contribution is taken as tax and goes to the California Senate Campaign Fund. Let’s say that there are 6 senate candidates registered on the ballot in California. There are the two major party candidates, Red Pacaderm (R), and Jenny Blue (D), but there are also 4 minor party candidates qualified: Al Green (Green Party), Connie White (Constitution Party), Violet Flowers (Libertarian Party), and Earl Gray (Tea Party).

These other 5 candidates will then split the $5 million in tax and wind up with $1 Million each that they can use to get their messages out. So, while Red will have another $5 Million to spend letting Californians know how a high Carbon Tax will affect the price they pay for gas, Al Green will have another $ 1 Million to spend explaining the consequences of Global Warming in the Carbon Tax isn’t implemented. Jenny Blue will have another $1 Million to talk about how a Carbon Tax could fund improved health care for all, and Violet Flowers will get a $1 Million to explain her view that we should not have a tax, but rather an incentive program (her “Let a 1000 flowers bloom” program) that encourages more entrepreneurs and new businesses to create new energy saving and alternative energy generating devices. Connie White and Earl Gray each use their $1 Million to make their names better known to more voters as well.

Whether this additional information from all candidates will result in a more informed electorate might be debated, but at least there is more information available to those who would choose to be better informed.

This same approach can also be used to govern contributions to organizations campaigning on one side or the other for voter initiatives, or even on money contributed to political action committees that run advertising, etc. independent of any specific candidates campaign.

Would such a tax be considered unconstitutional for the same reason’s campaign spending limits have been stuck down by the Supreme Court?

I don’t think so.

Here’s why:

As has been frequently emphasized in debates about open software, there are two very different meanings of the word “free”: 1) free meaning “zero cost” and 2) free meaning “unrestricted”. Freedom of speech refers to this latter meaning, and the Supreme Court pointed out that laws that forbid such speech, or limit how much can be spent on such speech are limits — the very thing the first amendment guarantees the government won’t limit.

But the first amendment does not address the cost of expressing your views. Historically those costs have been high, as printing presses, paper and distribution cost of information has have been high. Standing on a soapbox on a street corner wasn’t expensive but it didn’t reach many people. Printing was expensive but could reach many more people. Television was expensive, but it reached many more people. But today anyone can twitter or put up a facebook page, and cost of reaching millions of people might be much lower. But there is still a big imbalance in quality and quantity of information, voters receive about different candidates and issues. This tax does not put any upper limit on how much money can be contributed to getting anyone’s preffered message out — it ensures that all the other voices won’t be drowned out by large campaign contributions to any one candidate or issue campaign.