Justice & Law Quote by Frank Luntz

Money talks here, and not in the subtle, Citizens United way. Frank Luntz - the message doctor who built a career on swapping “estate tax” for “death tax” - is pointing at the machinery behind “truth” in American adjudication: language as an instrument of power, financed to a gleam. The sentence is clunky on purpose, piling clause on clause like a legal billable hour. That accumulation is the point: the outcome isn’t a clean moral verdict, it’s a constructed story, engineered to land with “the right jury.”

The specific intent reads as half confession, half warning. Luntz isn’t celebrating justice; he’s describing an arms race. “A lot of money” leads, and everything else follows: big firms, high stakes, precision wording, persuasion. Innocence and guilt appear not as fixed realities but as rhetorical endpoints. “Either innocent or that the opposition is guilty” quietly collapses the ethical distinction between defending a client and attacking an opponent. The goal is winning, and the grammar treats it as symmetrical.

The subtext is that the courtroom, like politics, runs on framing. Luntz’s world assumes humans don’t deliberate like philosophers; they decide like jurors under pressure, absorbing narrative cues and emotional hooks. Coming from a political operative, the line also smuggles in a bleak piece of cultural context: institutions we like to imagine as neutral - courts, juries, “the law” - are vulnerable to the same linguistic manipulation as campaigns. Justice isn’t blind; it’s being pitched, and the best-funded pitch often gets the last word.