3 ms·

Money is not speech, and courts do not treat it as such. The most famous recent case, Citizens United didn't even flirt with the notion. (Despite much comment

by Lazare 8y ago

Money is not speech, and courts do not treat it as such. The most famous recent case, Citizens United didn't even flirt with the notion. (Despite much commentary to the contrary, apparently from people who didn't read the decision.) Money does, however, enable speech, and restrictions on things which enable us to exercise fundamental rights is at least potentially a restriction on that right. That's the framework the Supreme Court used. If you disagree, consider: Pick a right you quite like (gun ownership, abortion, speech, voting in an election, etc.). Clearly a law banning that activity outright, or severely restricting it ("you can't obtain an abortion", "you can only speak in favour of Trump", "you can't own a handgun", "you can only vote for the Democratic candidate") would be absurdly illegal. It follows that a law preventing you from spending money on that right ("you cannot pay for an abortion", "you cannot spend money on criticising Trump", "you can't purchase a handgun", "you can't spend money travelling to the polls unless voting for a Democrat") would also be illegal (if severe enough at least). The scope in which government can make your ability to exercise fundamental rights more difficult is non-zero, but sharply proscribed (witness the long string of court decisions striking down red state abortion laws). It's possible that the restriction at stake in Citizens United was so minor that it should have been permissible, but I take your argument to be that it was anything but minor. In which case, the restriction probably was unconstitutional. In the US system, speech is protected, and (like it or not!) political speech is the most protected form. Any law which meaningfully impacts any real person's ability to speak about politics is presumptively unconstitutional, by design. And the more meaningful the restriction, the more that applies.

Retric 8y ago
Money forces people to listen which is inherently very different from speech. And there are plenty of laws limiting speech for example in schools. So, outright limiting say TV advertising would be completely constitutional and have the side effect of limiting exactly the types of speech you're talking about without constitutional issues.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I hope this isn't considered devolving the thread but that episode of Radiolab mentioned above certainly made it seem, to me, the issue was about censoring movie makers. If you're on the left you more likely than not like Michael Moore movies. They are often very political. Should they be banned? That was the topic that came up in Radiolab. Citizens United, inspired by Michael Moore's movies, decided they wanted to do the same thing. Someone decided Citizens United didn't have the same rights to release movies with a political message as Michael Moore and the studios that funded and distributed his movies. The Supreme Court I think saw the problem. Where does it end? Is Transformers political speech? Is Sense8 political speech? Is Milk? I don't know how to solve the issue of getting money out of politics but I can at least see the argument that deciding which movies are political and which are not is not as easy as it sounds. Maybe Michael Moore's movie should have been prevented from release within N months before the election? I think that was the actual law used to prevent Citizen's United's movie coming out even though Moore's came out within the same type of time frame before an election.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
didibus 8y ago
That's an interesting frame. And I think it works out given a pretty fair playing ground. The whole point of free speech is to prevent single origin messages. To promote more ideas and perspectives. And prevent people from shutting up opposite views. But the constitution isn't perfect. Its hard to make sure your hard rules will work for all context. I think in this case, there's a fear that now that money is getting more and more disproportionate and concentrated into a single origin. The power to speak will follow into that same disproportionate single origin. Maybe free speech still enables all to speak, but the uneven distribution of money causes some to speak much louder. So the question is, could this be detrimental to democracy? Is it possible it hurts our political ability to focus on what trully matters to most and to come up with the best ideas on how to effectively get it? I don't know, its hard to say. Maybe we need some simulations. But if it were true, then clearly something should be done to address this loophole. Forcing transparency into who spent the money is one possible solution. Maybe you could cap out money each one can spend to speak. There's probably other ways also.

by Lazare 8y ago

Retric 8y ago

Money forces people to listen which is inherently very different from speech. And there are plenty of laws limiting speech for example in schools. So, outright limiting say TV advertising would be completely constitutional and have the side effect of limiting exactly the types of speech you're talking about without constitutional issues.

tokyodude 8y ago
I hope this isn't considered devolving the thread but that episode of Radiolab mentioned above certainly made it seem, to me, the issue was about censoring movie makers. If you're on the left you more likely than not like Michael Moore movies. They are often very political. Should they be banned? That was the topic that came up in Radiolab. Citizens United, inspired by Michael Moore's movies, decided they wanted to do the same thing. Someone decided Citizens United didn't have the same rights to release movies with a political message as Michael Moore and the studios that funded and distributed his movies. The Supreme Court I think saw the problem. Where does it end? Is Transformers political speech? Is Sense8 political speech? Is Milk? I don't know how to solve the issue of getting money out of politics but I can at least see the argument that deciding which movies are political and which are not is not as easy as it sounds. Maybe Michael Moore's movie should have been prevented from release within N months before the election? I think that was the actual law used to prevent Citizen's United's movie coming out even though Moore's came out within the same type of time frame before an election.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

didibus 8y ago

That's an interesting frame. And I think it works out given a pretty fair playing ground. The whole point of free speech is to prevent single origin messages. To promote more ideas and perspectives. And prevent people from shutting up opposite views. But the constitution isn't perfect. Its hard to make sure your hard rules will work for all context. I think in this case, there's a fear that now that money is getting more and more disproportionate and concentrated into a single origin. The power to speak will follow into that same disproportionate single origin. Maybe free speech still enables all to speak, but the uneven distribution of money causes some to speak much louder. So the question is, could this be detrimental to democracy? Is it possible it hurts our political ability to focus on what trully matters to most and to come up with the best ideas on how to effectively get it? I don't know, its hard to say. Maybe we need some simulations. But if it were true, then clearly something should be done to address this loophole. Forcing transparency into who spent the money is one possible solution. Maybe you could cap out money each one can spend to speak. There's probably other ways also.