5 ms·

In a country that protects money transfers as speech, shouldn't this be obvious?

by Iv 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago
The US doesn’t protect “money transfers” as speech as such. Buckley v. Valeo upheld limits on campaign contributions, for example. What that and Citizens United struck down was restrictions on using money to pay for political expression. If you want to spend $500 billion to put a sign on the moon that says “vote for Biden” you can do that. That’s not protecting “money transfers as speech,” it’s striking down restrictions on speech and political expression disguised as restrictions on money transfers. Of course that makes sense. If the government can stop you from spending $500 billion to put a sign on the moon, “because money isn’t speech,” then the government can stop you from spending $500 at Kinkos to print signs for a protest, for the exact same reason. If the government can use control of money to control speech, it has vast powers over speech because huge amounts of speech involves the expenditure of money. You pay AWS to host your political site? If Citizens United went the other way, the government could control that! Indeed, during oral argument in the Supreme Court, the lawyer for the government defending the campaign finance law was forced to admit that under the government’s view, Congress could ban books by controlling corporate expenditures: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... (pp. 26-30). (It’s one of the most devastating concessions in a Supreme Court oral argument I’ve ever read.)
- shmerl 7y ago
  > That’s not protecting “money transfers as speech,” it’s striking down restrictions on speech and political expression disguised as restrictions on money transfers. More like it legitimizes bribery as a "campaign contribution".
  - egdod 7y ago
    It's... not like that at all. Did you read the comment you replied to?
    - shmerl 7y ago
      Citizens United? It in essence is. One of the worst outcomes when it comes to legitimized political corruption.
      - egdod 7y ago
        Bribery would be giving money to the politician, yes? Citizens United doesn't address such contributions.
        reallydude 7y ago
        If I can pay for the sign on a boat instead of the moon, and it just says that politician's name, and the politician gets the boat, the difference is negligible.
        egdod 7y ago
        The politician doesn't get the boat though.
        shmerl 7y ago
        Politician gets the power, bought with money. How more corrupt than that it can be?
        egdod 7y ago
        The politician gets whatever benefit the advertising produced in the minds of the voters. That's it. He doesn't get to keep the boat, the corporation isn't giving him money, etc.
        shmerl 7y ago
        Politicians get the power, those who paid for it will ask for favors in return. If you don't see this as corrupt, not sure anything would count as corrupt then.
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  Haven't limits effectively been removed by permitting super PACs that aren't directly tied to the candidate? In practice, I don't see real limits on campaign contributions, only limits on the amounts a candidate can control him/herself. Maybe that's enough, I don't know.

In a country that protects money transfers as speech, shouldn't this be obvious?

by Iv 7y ago

In a country that protects money transfers as speech, shouldn't this be obvious?

The US doesn’t protect “money transfers” as speech as such. Buckley v. Valeo upheld limits on campaign contributions, for example. What that and Citizens United struck down was restrictions on using money to pay for political expression. If you want to spend $500 billion to put a sign on the moon that says “vote for Biden” you can do that. That’s not protecting “money transfers as speech,” it’s striking down restrictions on speech and political expression disguised as restrictions on money transfers. Of course that makes sense. If the government can stop you from spending $500 billion to put a sign on the moon, “because money isn’t speech,” then the government can stop you from spending $500 at Kinkos to print signs for a protest, for the exact same reason. If the government can use control of money to control speech, it has vast powers over speech because huge amounts of speech involves the expenditure of money. You pay AWS to host your political site? If Citizens United went the other way, the government could control that! Indeed, during oral argument in the Supreme Court, the lawyer for the government defending the campaign finance law was forced to admit that under the government’s view, Congress could ban books by controlling corporate expenditures: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2008/08-205.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... (pp. 26-30). (It’s one of the most devastating concessions in a Supreme Court oral argument I’ve ever read.)

shmerl 7y ago
> That’s not protecting “money transfers as speech,” it’s striking down restrictions on speech and political expression disguised as restrictions on money transfers. More like it legitimizes bribery as a "campaign contribution".
- egdod 7y ago
  It's... not like that at all. Did you read the comment you replied to?
  - shmerl 7y ago
    Citizens United? It in essence is. One of the worst outcomes when it comes to legitimized political corruption.
    - egdod 7y ago
      Bribery would be giving money to the politician, yes? Citizens United doesn't address such contributions.
      - reallydude 7y ago
        If I can pay for the sign on a boat instead of the moon, and it just says that politician's name, and the politician gets the boat, the difference is negligible.
        egdod 7y ago
        The politician doesn't get the boat though.
        shmerl 7y ago
        Politician gets the power, bought with money. How more corrupt than that it can be?
        egdod 7y ago
        The politician gets whatever benefit the advertising produced in the minds of the voters. That's it. He doesn't get to keep the boat, the corporation isn't giving him money, etc.
        shmerl 7y ago
        Politicians get the power, those who paid for it will ask for favors in return. If you don't see this as corrupt, not sure anything would count as corrupt then.
unityByFreedom 7y ago
Haven't limits effectively been removed by permitting super PACs that aren't directly tied to the candidate? In practice, I don't see real limits on campaign contributions, only limits on the amounts a candidate can control him/herself. Maybe that's enough, I don't know.