3 ms·

But what is speech if you prohibit any use of money in it? It is just standing on a street corner yelling at passers-by? Using money to amplify your speech is

But what is speech if you prohibit any use of money in it? It is just standing on a street corner yelling at passers-by? Using money to amplify your speech is just the nature of the world. Buying ads, or buying speakers are just different ends of the money axis.

bongodongobob 2y ago
I mean, yes. Shouting on a corner isn't in the same universe as broadcasting to the entire country/world or using billboards etc. People in the 1700s could not conceive of the way communication works these days.
- vel0city 2y ago
  People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media. Is just posting on social media protected political speech? Is then paying for a computer and internet connection to post political speech on social media a campaign contribution?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media They could easily conceive of the cost of printing pamphlets.
    - philipov 2y ago
      Revolution-era America was a middling society where the difference between the very rich and the very poor was much less than it is today. The richest colonists weren't as rich, but neither were the poorest colonists as poor, as those back in the homeland. Huge concentrations of wealth just weren't a problem they needed to deal with in those turbulent times. As financial inequality grows, if the use of money to amplify ones liberty is not curtailed, then the new aristocratic class will be able to drown out the liberty of the rest. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but power is. This is what the founders did not solve, and consciously left it as an exercise for their descendants. A republic if you can keep it, is what they gave us. They did not feel the need to foresee what would happen in 200 years. They expected us to make the changes necessary to keep it. They did not want us to hold them up as godlike figures from whose mouths came the One True Word. It is a constitution, not divine scripture - we have an amendment process to make the changes we need, but first we need to agree that such changes are necessary, particularly in the realms of lobbying and campaign finance. These are the greatest vectors for corruption in government.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- absolutelastone 2y ago
  Wouldn't this concern of yours also apply to the press under any definition? I can't afford to distribute my little pamphlet as much as the Times does their newspaper. And the constitution specifically protects the press, so you need a constitutional amendment. Rather than trying to make an end run around the constitution with a distinction about "money" not being speech, despite the obvious goal of the law being to regulate political speech itself via targeted restrictions on money.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. Newspapers shouldn't be able to say whatever they want.
cr__ 2y ago
Yes, and there are different points along that money axis where a reasonable society might choose to place regulations and restrictions (in the absence of a decree from the courts that it’s illegal to do so).
daveguy 2y ago
There is only so much time and broadcast outlet bandwidth. With limited bandwidth, a single entity can put so much money into the system that it prevents others from being able to afford to broadcast their message even if they otherwise would have been able to do so. Therefore, the Citizens United decision preferences speech about politics to those with the most money and restricts speech for those with the least. There should be a cap, and transparency, and pac redistribution restrictions on spending for all entities. Currently, there is a cap, and transparency, in spending for individuals and corporations directly to a campaign or party, but no limits on anything else.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  None of that refutes GP's point that money does equate to speech in a very real sense. (At least when it's spent on speech.) You seem to be agreeing on that point, but saying we should have limits on how much certain people can speak to make it easier for others to speak? That's not necessarily a bad argument, but it's still an unconstitutional one. "No law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty black and white. Courts are supposed to make decisions based on the law, not based on whatever they think sounds like a good idea.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Money does not equate to speech. Money is a megaphone for speech, that is not the same as speech.
    - Ajedi32 2y ago
      That feels like a "I'm not touching you" sort of argument to me, assuming your intent is to argue that the first amendment doesn't prevent the government from banning people from spending money on speech.
      - philipov 2y ago
        Like when the supreme court ruled unanimously that banning TikTok only required intermediate scrutiny, I believe that regulating campaign finance is a content-neutral policy, and should not have invoked strict scrutiny.
arp242 2y ago
> But what is speech if you prohibit any use of money in it? It is just standing on a street corner yelling at passers-by? Absolutely no one is arguing for this or anything even vaguely like it. Just some common sense limits to prevent big players completely drowning out everything else.

bongodongobob 2y ago

I mean, yes. Shouting on a corner isn't in the same universe as broadcasting to the entire country/world or using billboards etc. People in the 1700s could not conceive of the way communication works these days.

vel0city 2y ago
People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media. Is just posting on social media protected political speech? Is then paying for a computer and internet connection to post political speech on social media a campaign contribution?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People in the 1900s could not conceive of posting on social media They could easily conceive of the cost of printing pamphlets.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Revolution-era America was a middling society where the difference between the very rich and the very poor was much less than it is today. The richest colonists weren't as rich, but neither were the poorest colonists as poor, as those back in the homeland. Huge concentrations of wealth just weren't a problem they needed to deal with in those turbulent times. As financial inequality grows, if the use of money to amplify ones liberty is not curtailed, then the new aristocratic class will be able to drown out the liberty of the rest. The economy is not a zero-sum game, but power is. This is what the founders did not solve, and consciously left it as an exercise for their descendants. A republic if you can keep it, is what they gave us. They did not feel the need to foresee what would happen in 200 years. They expected us to make the changes necessary to keep it. They did not want us to hold them up as godlike figures from whose mouths came the One True Word. It is a constitution, not divine scripture - we have an amendment process to make the changes we need, but first we need to agree that such changes are necessary, particularly in the realms of lobbying and campaign finance. These are the greatest vectors for corruption in government.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
absolutelastone 2y ago
Wouldn't this concern of yours also apply to the press under any definition? I can't afford to distribute my little pamphlet as much as the Times does their newspaper. And the constitution specifically protects the press, so you need a constitutional amendment. Rather than trying to make an end run around the constitution with a distinction about "money" not being speech, despite the obvious goal of the law being to regulate political speech itself via targeted restrictions on money.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Newspapers shouldn't be able to say whatever they want.

cr__ 2y ago

Yes, and there are different points along that money axis where a reasonable society might choose to place regulations and restrictions (in the absence of a decree from the courts that it’s illegal to do so).

daveguy 2y ago

There is only so much time and broadcast outlet bandwidth. With limited bandwidth, a single entity can put so much money into the system that it prevents others from being able to afford to broadcast their message even if they otherwise would have been able to do so. Therefore, the Citizens United decision preferences speech about politics to those with the most money and restricts speech for those with the least. There should be a cap, and transparency, and pac redistribution restrictions on spending for all entities. Currently, there is a cap, and transparency, in spending for individuals and corporations directly to a campaign or party, but no limits on anything else.

Ajedi32 2y ago
None of that refutes GP's point that money does equate to speech in a very real sense. (At least when it's spent on speech.) You seem to be agreeing on that point, but saying we should have limits on how much certain people can speak to make it easier for others to speak? That's not necessarily a bad argument, but it's still an unconstitutional one. "No law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is pretty black and white. Courts are supposed to make decisions based on the law, not based on whatever they think sounds like a good idea.
- philipov 2y ago
  Money does not equate to speech. Money is a megaphone for speech, that is not the same as speech.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    That feels like a "I'm not touching you" sort of argument to me, assuming your intent is to argue that the first amendment doesn't prevent the government from banning people from spending money on speech.
    - philipov 2y ago
      Like when the supreme court ruled unanimously that banning TikTok only required intermediate scrutiny, I believe that regulating campaign finance is a content-neutral policy, and should not have invoked strict scrutiny.

arp242 2y ago

> But what is speech if you prohibit any use of money in it? It is just standing on a street corner yelling at passers-by? Absolutely no one is arguing for this or anything even vaguely like it. Just some common sense limits to prevent big players completely drowning out everything else.