If you could pass one law...

Someone on Quora asked "If you could pass a law, what law would it be?" My answer got into an interesting discussion, which I'm reposting here.

If "law" includes constitutional amendment, I would pass an amendment giving the federal and state governments power to regulate campaign donations and spending. Our democracy collapsed when the Supreme Court ruled that money was speech in the 70's.
Wolf PAC

Someone questioned why I'd want to hinder freedom of speech for groups. 

I responded that every individual in that group would have exactly the same rights and influence as every person outside that group. In other words, groups don't have rights. Individuals in groups do.

Our goal is to have a stable society. The most stable society is a functional democracy, wherein the collective will of the people is expressed and executed. This is my premise.

Now, observations. Unlimited political donation gives some individuals and groups more influence than others. Looking at what happened in politics since the USSC legalized corporate donations, the will of the people has been utterly ignored by the federal government on most or all issues. This can be statistically demonstrated.

Unlimited money in politics breaks democracy, thereby making our society less stable. On these grounds alone, it should be disallowed. All other concerns are secondary.

Someone then claimed that freedom was more important than stability, and that the most stable society would be dictatorship.

Dictatorship is not stable. Dictatorships are plagued by violent rebellion, even more violent suppression of rebellion, and then state collapse when the dictator falls. Look at the entire middle east to see how that goes. At best, dictatorships give the illusion of stability in the short term. Let's not be fooled into thinking that actually translates to stability.

As an observation about humanity in all contexts, if you try to prevent people from getting what they want, they will fight. Democracy gives people what they want. That's why it's stable, at least within the bounds of what's possible given uncontrollable circumstances.

"Freedom" is an abstract buzzword that many use without conveying useful information. Drop the language, and look at what actually happens. Okay, so I'm not prevented from buying elections, and some claim that that fact makes me free. But what does it make everyone else? It makes them my slave, because I just bought the government! What you're describing as freedom is actually disenfranchisement and slavery of the poor. There's no freedom about it!

In fact, let's go there. Compare it to slavery. People were once free to own other people. That freedom was removed. Slaveholders were made less free. Was that wrong? Of course not, because in so doing, other people were made more free.

No liberties are absolute. They're all games of balance between one person's desires and another's. I'm suggesting everyone should have equal influence over their government, which is the fundamental concept of America. To suggest that campaign donations should be unlimited is to take that premise and throw it out, so the rich have more influence than the poor.

I understand reverence for the Bill of Rights. But unlike some, I also understand its place. The Bill of Rights is a tool that exists for the express purpose of protecting one principle: government by the people. If it fails to protect that principle, we fix it. The Bill of Rights is the servant, not the master.