When the supreme court ruled in favor of citizens united in the landmark case citizens united vs. federal elections commission, the language of the decision expressly equates the capital expenditures of a corporation to influence an election as free speech. So where does that leave the rest of us who do not have billions of dollars in capital to advance our causes? Basically voiceless.
The voice of the 99% (used in this case as meaning anyone who cannot get corporate sponsorship for their cause) is essentially wiped out by this "constitutional interpretation". It is like saying "sure you have your right to free speech, but every time you open your mouth I am going to scream in a bull horn so no one can hear you". I ask you, my readers (all three of you), does this infringe on our freedom of speech?
It is like the "free speech zones" they set up during campaign events, only in stead of separating dissenting voices from public events, they are separating the American people from the elected officials that write the laws we live by.
There is no doubt about it, if we don't put aside the artificial differences created by partisan bickering (see "wedge issue voting") and put forth a collective effort to enact meaningful change we no not stand a change of having any of the most important issues our nation faces resolved properly. Think for a second, does the issue you care about the most in politics have a chance at gaining corporate sponsorship? It there a way for a singularly profit motivated entity to benefit from it? If not, then you better get involved soon, or give it up entirely.
Don't be fooled into becoming what I call the "apathetic majority". Gather signatures or at least sign the petition, or accept that the only direction our country will travel in the future is towards what is best for a handful of the most lucrative industries.