3 ms·

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

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.
  - nradov 2y ago
    That is a reasonable opinion (and I agree with it) but just repeating it doesn't make it true. Others apparently disagree and it's at least a bit of a legal gray area. The only real solution will be a Constitutional amendment that explicitly excludes certain financial transactions from the definition of speech.
    - philipov 2y ago
      You're right. Technically speaking, it's not a legal grey area. > Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once wrote: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” We lost. And we're going to keep losing as free speech continues to become a Pay-to-Play arena.
- daveguy 2y ago
  Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. The person with the most money shouldn't have the most speech. I'm a limited bandwidth scenario, you literally abridge the speech of the person with less money when the law equates money and speech. By restricting the megaphone size you avoid or at least reduce the problem.

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.
- nradov 2y ago
  That is a reasonable opinion (and I agree with it) but just repeating it doesn't make it true. Others apparently disagree and it's at least a bit of a legal gray area. The only real solution will be a Constitutional amendment that explicitly excludes certain financial transactions from the definition of speech.
  - philipov 2y ago
    You're right. Technically speaking, it's not a legal grey area. > Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson once wrote: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” We lost. And we're going to keep losing as free speech continues to become a Pay-to-Play arena.
daveguy 2y ago
Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. The person with the most money shouldn't have the most speech. I'm a limited bandwidth scenario, you literally abridge the speech of the person with less money when the law equates money and speech. By restricting the megaphone size you avoid or at least reduce the problem.