LinkedIn on Monday, December 15, 2025

When I was a kid, there were no smart phones and you could still tune up your car with a handful of ordinary tools, without a graduate degree in computer science.  Chips and software that would humanize machines that can out-think us were science fiction.  Not anymore.  Today, their reality is singlehandedly supporting the stock market at levels that were once considered astronomical and powering the growth of our economy – masking problems elsewhere that might otherwise suggest an early stage recession.

In a relatively short time, the advent of next era technologies has created companies and, more importantly, individuals of immense, unprecedented wealth and influence.  The “captains of industry” of the Industrial Revolution and even later major scientific and technological developments were un-influential paupers compared to these nouveau super entrepreneurs.

So what?  What’s wrong is that we have fewer and fewer people influencing, if not outright controlling the President, Congress, Governors and state legislatures.  Trust me on this…  Severe concentration of wealth and the influence it can buy are not the friends of democracy.

What can we do about it?  That’s the question I’m hoping you will help me figure out through your comments and suggestions.

For one thing, a January 2027 Democratic majority in Congress can tax the extremely wealthy, exponentially so, for the benefit of everyone else.  But that’s not going to happen, is it?  In fact, so great is the wealth of these few, I’m not even sure that works.  Take away half of their billions, for example, they’re still left with the other half which is more than they need to accomplish their political objectives.

How about an independent Justice Department and Supreme Court that would suppress illegal financial influences and un-Constitutional behavior?  Nah.

On the other hand, what a Democratically controlled Congress might be able to do is craft a set of laws that take big money out of federal politics with as many state legislatures as possible following suit.  That works, but will it be okay with the Supreme Court?

As you know, the Court determined some time ago that spending money on politics is a form of free speech protected by the Constitution.  …This is where I pretend to sneeze while hiding the word “Bullshit!” in the sound of it.

Remember, I’m no lawyer or Constitutional scholar.

“No kidding.”

Hey, I heard that.

So, I’m no lawyer.  That said, what my reading of the Constitution and common sense tell me is that the framers of our government intended that all people are equal with respect their right to free speech – regardless of their income.

To argue that free speech includes political contributions and other expenditures to influence government is to give wealthier people an advantage over their less financially successful counterparts – an advantage that is inherently un-Constitutional.  People are clearly not equal with respect to income, nor should they be.  It’s only logical that political spending made possible by income cannot be protected by guarantees of freedom of speech.  Political expenditures are, in fact, the enemies of freedom of speech, the verbal and written kind.  The more money you have, the louder and more effectively you can argue for your point of view.

What do you think?

-Les Cohen