4 ms·
>> Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money. > Reducing
by Seenso 7y ago
>> Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money.
> Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment.
Not necessarily; it all depends on perspective. Campaign finance restrictions would (relatively) enhance the ability of a not-so-wealthy person to broadcast their speech, because their message wouldn't be so drowned out by the broadcasts of the wealthy.
- harryh 7y agoThe first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The amendment says that the government has to stay out of the way.
- Seenso 7y ago> The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech." The First Amendment isn't the sum total of American law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are constitutional powers meant to provide effective democratic elections. The tension here is between those two interests. I think it's worth considering the idea that a too-absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment (in regards to spending) may interfere with the nation's ability to provide effective democratic elections. Both are important priorities. Also, it's not like the Constitution is perfect, timeless document. If it doesn't do enough to ensure effective democratic elections in light of its other provisions, then changes should be considered to fix that oversight.