4 ms·

Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. And the two party system is one of the most effective mone

by cmurf 7y ago

Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. And the two party system is one of the most effective money machines, they have only ever proposed mitigations for the most heinous activities. On what mitigation could they possibly agree on that doesn't run afoul of Buckley v. Valeo, et al? It takes money to broadcast, print, and distribute anything, so if you believe in free speech you'd necessarily have to agree there should be no limit on distribution, as well as no public subsidy of it. And therefore no limit on the private expenditure that enables its distribution.

stevehawk 7y ago
Technically, the Supreme Court ruled that a law that the legislative branch voted for and executive branch did not veto was not unconstitutional, thus causing the "Supreme Court says money is speech" situation. All we have to do is update the law or pass a constitutional amendment but no one is ever going to do that.
baddox 7y ago
> Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. It's clearly not that simple, because there are a lot of laws about campaign finance in the United States. The court ruling that money is speech obviously doesn't mean that there are no restrictions on how money can be used in campaigns, and it doesn't mean those restrictions can't be changed with laws.
manfredo 7y ago
> Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. This is a massive oversimplification. There are still set limits on donating money to candidates, and to political parties. The "money is free speech" phrase comes from Citizens United, which removed limits on spending unrelated to electioneering. So you can't just go donate a million dollars to your favored candidate or political party. You can, however, run ads broadly advocating e.g. for or against gun control, climate change, etc.

by cmurf 7y ago

stevehawk 7y ago

Technically, the Supreme Court ruled that a law that the legislative branch voted for and executive branch did not veto was not unconstitutional, thus causing the "Supreme Court says money is speech" situation. All we have to do is update the law or pass a constitutional amendment but no one is ever going to do that.

baddox 7y ago

> Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. It's clearly not that simple, because there are a lot of laws about campaign finance in the United States. The court ruling that money is speech obviously doesn't mean that there are no restrictions on how money can be used in campaigns, and it doesn't mean those restrictions can't be changed with laws.

manfredo 7y ago

> Supreme Court has ruled money is free speech. It will take a constitutional amendment to change this. This is a massive oversimplification. There are still set limits on donating money to candidates, and to political parties. The "money is free speech" phrase comes from Citizens United, which removed limits on spending unrelated to electioneering. So you can't just go donate a million dollars to your favored candidate or political party. You can, however, run ads broadly advocating e.g. for or against gun control, climate change, etc.