3 ms·
There are no constraints on campaign spending. Trump spent like $60 million of his own money on his presidential campaign. There are limits on how much money a
by snowwrestler 8y ago
There are no constraints on campaign spending. Trump spent like $60 million of his own money on his presidential campaign.
There are limits on how much money any individual may give to a campaign that is not their own, and a prohibition against organizations (corporations, unions, etc) giving money to a campaign.
Why? Because there is a difference between spending your own money to enable your own speech (independent expenditure, the subject of Citizens United), and giving your own money to someone else to spend however they want (direct contribution, whose limits Citizens United did not disturb).
- rectang 8y agoAsserting that independent expenditures don't cause "harm" in terms of corruption or the appearance of corruption is arbitrary. In fact, independent expenditures are quite likely to lead to excessively favorable treatment even in the absence of an explicit quid pro quo. Limiting campaign contributions is a limit on speech, and limiting independent expenditures is also a limit on speech. Those that insist that one causes harm and the other does not have merely arrogated to themselves the right to define "harm".
- snowwrestler 8y agoIt's not arbitrary, it is a logical necessity to protect free speech. Otherwise political speech exists in a murky gray area where it's "free" unless some prosecutor decides that it's actually corruption. There's your dangerous arrogation--which thankfully the Supreme Court preempted.