3 ms·
The ruling isn't really about speech, though, it's about money. The ruling doesn't affect any person's ability to speak, it affects a company's ability to spen
by tsuraan 17y ago
The ruling isn't really about speech, though, it's about money. The ruling doesn't affect any person's ability to speak, it affects a company's ability to spend its money on political candidates, with a clear expectation of a positive ROI. How can that possible be legal? If money really is speech, why isn't it legal to talk my way out of a speeding ticket with a wallet full of bills?
- mseebach 17y ago> The ruling isn't really about speech, though, it's about money. Its about money spent on speech. Free speech that you can't spend money on, isn't free speech. If a news paper was told that it was welcome to print a specific story, except you can't spend money on ink for it, it'd still be censorship. > spend its money on political candidates, with a clear expectation of a positive ROI. How can that possible be legal It's not, that's corruption. What you're referring to is rent-seeking, and it's been around as long as politics itself. The best solution is to give politicians less power, simply because there's less rent to seek.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoIt is legal to use money/speech to talk yourself out of future speeding tickets. You can spend money on posters entitled, "Vote Smith, No More Speeding Tickets!" in the hopes that it will persuade people to vote for Smith (who presumably promised to end laws against speeding).