3 ms·
Didn't the Citizens United vs. FEC case argue that money is free speech, and therefore campaign finance laws limiting Super PAC's spending were overturned? How
by jlj 10y ago
Didn't the Citizens United vs. FEC case argue that money is free speech, and therefore campaign finance laws limiting Super PAC's spending were overturned?
How might that affect banking laws that require banks to flag suspicious transactions and restrict who can send and receive funds? Have the banking laws that restrict payments ever been challenged in court as a free speech issue?
Just wondering if these two dots are in any way connected. I am not pro-money laundering but also don't like the idea of government overreach. Thinking that since banks are non-government that the constitutional protections don't apply, but what about the laws that bring about the banking regulations?
- cderwin 10y agoI am not a lawyer, but I don't think so. Citizens United didn't rule that money was literally speech, but instead that laws prohibiting the expenditure of money on speech (i.e. a political ad) are impermissible impediments on protected speech. Fraud isn't protected speech, and money laundering isn't speech at all, so I don't think the first amendment comes into play at all. And yes, I don't think constitutional protections would apply to a bank simply refusing to be the medium for a financial transaction.
- jlj 10y agoHelpful interpretation, thanks. What about if the expenditure is prohibited by mistake, is not fraud or money laundering, and it gets locked up in bureaucracy indefinitely? In that case it seems like protected speech could be restricted. Anyone know if constitutional law can be applied to quasi-government private organizations? At what point is an industry such as banking so regulated by government that it can't be distinguished from government?
- inconclusive 10y agoThis is a pretty compelling point!