7 ms·

The First Amendment is about free speech. Money is not speech, and should not require a specific carve-out. If you equate money to speech then elected officials

The First Amendment is about free speech. Money is not speech, and should not require a specific carve-out. If you equate money to speech then elected officials become beholden to those with money, which kills democracy.

segasaturn 2y ago
Is a boycott not an act of free expression? What about giving to charity? I'm sure the US Government would love to shut down all donations to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, but thanks to the First Amendment those activities are protected by the constitution.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  None of those things are speech, and if they are legal it is not thanks to the first amendment. And as it turns out, donations are not necessarily legal either, see: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-money-find-way-to-tamil-tigers-idUSTRE59I1XN/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-mon...
tzs 2y ago
Money is not speech. But if you use money to print newspapers, buy ads on radio or TV, put up signs, etc., those newspapers, ads, signs, etc., are speech. If you can ban people from spending money on those things you are de facto banning speech.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  If you allow corporations to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads on radio or TV, newspapers etc. you are allowing them to drown out the voice of citizens, and at that point you are de facto banning speech of the citizens.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    The premise that Citizens United publishing a documentary about Hillary Clinton in some way "drowned out" anybody's speech, let alone "defacto banned speech of the citizens" is farcical. Nobody had ever even heard of that movie, if not for the legal battle over whether they had a right to publish it. Particularly in the modern era when the ability of individuals to make themselves heard is greater than anytime in the past. When this country was founded, only people wealthy enough to own printing presses could hope to reach large numbers od people. Today, the means to reach lots of people exists in your pocket and people are mostly just limited by their ability, or inability, to think of anything worth saying.

segasaturn 2y ago

Is a boycott not an act of free expression? What about giving to charity? I'm sure the US Government would love to shut down all donations to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, but thanks to the First Amendment those activities are protected by the constitution.

breadwinner 2y ago
None of those things are speech, and if they are legal it is not thanks to the first amendment. And as it turns out, donations are not necessarily legal either, see: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-money-find-way-to-tamil-tigers-idUSTRE59I1XN/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/did-rajaratnams-mon...

tzs 2y ago

Money is not speech. But if you use money to print newspapers, buy ads on radio or TV, put up signs, etc., those newspapers, ads, signs, etc., are speech. If you can ban people from spending money on those things you are de facto banning speech.

breadwinner 2y ago
If you allow corporations to pump hundreds of millions of dollars to buy ads on radio or TV, newspapers etc. you are allowing them to drown out the voice of citizens, and at that point you are de facto banning speech of the citizens.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The premise that Citizens United publishing a documentary about Hillary Clinton in some way "drowned out" anybody's speech, let alone "defacto banned speech of the citizens" is farcical. Nobody had ever even heard of that movie, if not for the legal battle over whether they had a right to publish it. Particularly in the modern era when the ability of individuals to make themselves heard is greater than anytime in the past. When this country was founded, only people wealthy enough to own printing presses could hope to reach large numbers od people. Today, the means to reach lots of people exists in your pocket and people are mostly just limited by their ability, or inability, to think of anything worth saying.