3 ms·

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.