>How does our regulation of a candidate's fundraising indicate extreme/nonsensical regulation of protected speech? It corrupts our democracy. A democracy shou

>How does our regulation of a candidate's fundraising indicate extreme/nonsensical regulation of protected speech? It corrupts our democracy. A democracy should be one person, one voice, one vote. In our democracy the people with money have an outsized voice and therefore an outsized influence which leads to a government that is more concerned with appeasing the wealthy class minority than the majority of the rest of us. >Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country? No, the point is the reverse. We can express ourselves here more than they can in Europe. Even still, I don't think you will find a huge percentage of Europeans who feel they can't legally express themselves. That is because most of the things that are protected here and not in Europe are a net negative on society. I also fail to see how outlawing something like Holocaust denial is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Why do we need to protect speech that is objectively and inarguably incorrect? Defaming a individual person in the US is illegal. Why should defaming an entire class of people through hate speech be legal? Plus the US doesn't even have universally protected speech anyway. We outlaw plenty of speech from our meager campaign finance laws to threats of violence. There is no binary choice between free speech and no free speech. We are just debating where the line is and the US isn't drawing the line where most other countries are drawing it.