PROSPERITY, INEQUALITY and DEMOCRACY

PROSPERITY, INEQUALITY and DEMOCRACY
By Joel Levin

Do you care about equality? Here is a simple test. Suppose you had to choose between two societies. In the first, the wealth among the citizens is relatively even, with everyone having between 90 and 110 units of that wealth, with units made up of money, personal goods, housing, cars, and the usual collection of consumer goods we all love, collect, covet, and want to own. The second society is exactly the same as the first, but wealthier, with everyone having between 115 and 1000 units of wealth: bigger or much bigger houses, televisions, bank accounts, and collections of stuff. Which would you choose?

Put more clearly, would you want everyone to have more (iPhones, vacations, tuition dollars, beer money) at the price of some individuals having a lot more (yachts, fifth homes, private jets, household servants (if wealthy ones))? Or would you prefer to be a member of a society of greater equality, even if a little poorer? Politically, do you cheer Elizabeth Warren or do you fondly remember Ronald Reagan?

Both sides think this question to be an easy one, if with radically different views of what counts as easy. Do you really care how rich Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates are if you get to communicate with your granddaughter on Facebook with your iPhone whenever you want? On the other hand, how is it acceptable that 26 very rich people own as much as the poorest 3.8 billion, causing an emotional, cultural, social, even visual reality that is, to say the least, morally problematic?

Let me raise this split of opinions in the context of democracy. How does inequality figure, not in general, but as a voting matter? After all, each of us, rich or poor, full of possessions or buried in debt (or both), get exactly one vote, and we would prefer, while waiting in line to exercise that vote, to check our emails, catch up on social media, and listen to our favorite obscure songs. Economic equality appears unconnected, at least in this way, to democracy.

That is the message of perhaps the most monumental decision of the 21st Century, Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court’s decision in that case held, roughly, that the federal law limiting the campaign contributions of organizations such as corporations and unions was unconstitutional. Speech was not to be restricted, and campaign spending was part of speech. Who the speaker is – individual, company, union, charity – should not matter. It is true some may be richer and thus have more access or power than others, but that is always going to be the case. If I own a newspaper, control an important blog site, operate a television station, or am just sufficiently famous that microphones follow me, my speech has more influence than if I don’t, and more influence than that of most individuals. People pay more attention to me if I have a glittering or elevated podium, a la Oprah Winfrey, Charles Koch, and various Kennedys and Kardashians. That is life. Add to that fact the shakiness of the value of equality and our reluctance to sacrifice what we want – more stuff – and one might ask why we should trumpet equality to limit speech. Let the billionaires – Trump, Steyer, Bloomberg – do their best.

A small blemish in the Citizens United decision points to a larger flaw in that argument. Citizens United held that artificial people such as corporations and unions are to be treated and to be considered the same as natural persons when examining the issue of rights. We know that can’t be true. Outside of The Truman Show, we don’t believe that. Should companies be allowed to adopt a baby? The right to vote? The right to serve on a jury? Obviously not.

Of course, these artificial entities are made up of natural people and natural people have rights, so where, one might ask, is the problem? Here it becomes one of equality: one human, one vote. No one should be able to use their wealth or skills or social networks to get extra votes, no one meaning no one. That voting equality, one of freedom or of individual rights, is different than economic equality. Nothing should get us an extra vote in the way lots of things could get us extra other things: goods, degrees, money, even friends (social wealth).

Let us return to where we began, that is, to the equality question. One of two things is true about that question: either it means all are better off despite the inequality but some are far better off and better includes as part of what we measure political capital (speech rights, voting rights, fair trial rights) or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, and rights are diminished (you have two votes or the ability in some way to gain an additional vote), then the dilemma doesn’t arise. There is, by this view, no universal benefit in political wealth. If it does include political wealth (accumulating rights, not devices), then the premise of Citizens United, that unlimited campaign funds can be spent to change results because rights are being protected, is severely undercut. This is not because of economic equality concerns, but because of the political reality itself. While we champion economic prosperity, and treasure our devices, outings, IRAs and creature comforts, we also need to see whether we are enjoying the same prosperity with regard to our political capital.