4 ms·

Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and the

Would require overturning a supreme court precedent or amending the constitution. Because the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech that’s protected under the 1st amendment.

kgwxd 4y ago
Then why can't I throw money at a cop to persuade them to not give me a ticket?
- jacobr1 4y ago
  We can and do limit actual donations and gifts direct to elected officials. Or at least have laws about transparency. Certainly more to be done here, but the margins of the debate are usually around things like media spending. So, yes, you can buy an ad, or host a rally, or a fundraiser for a city-council candidate, to persuade the city council to raise the speed limit, or make parking free or whatever caused you to get a ticket. You can even schedule a direct meeting, or maybe even take out a representative for a meal to express your concern. The later case might involve some kind of disclosure, but you can probably do it.
andrekandre 4y ago
> the current settled law is that throwing money at politicians and them then spending it is speech iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose)
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > iirc the ruling is only about donating to pacs (political action committees) and not politicians directly (small distinction i suppose) It's about independent expenditures groups that do not coordinate with candidate campaigns (which have, after the fact, gotten the name “SuperPACs”; normal PACs can legally coordinate with and donate to campaigns, but cannot receive unlimited donations.)
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    right right, super pacs, forgot that specific point, thanks for pointing that out