It seems to be a recurring theme in any campaign finance discussion, and I have yet to see any justification for it, but I just don’t see how limiting campaign contributions can be seen as going against the first amendment. This applies equally to every candidate, so I’m not picking on a particular party. I’m pretty sure both Dems and Repubs alike love the money they get.
How does something, that certainly seems on its face to be a bribe, equate to free speech? I can tell a candidate exactly how I feel in a letter, e-mail, face to face, questions at a town hall, etc. I don’t have to spend a dime to do so. In fact, spending a dime would likely make me feel they were somehow in my debt. Does the first amendment guarantee that the person with the most money gets to speak the loudest? Does free speech cover returned favors? I’m betting Bill Gates could get the attention of a candidate with a quick and easy 500 million dollar donation. In fact, the candidate wouldn’t need another dime. Does this mean that Bill has more of a right to free speech than I do?
If we completely outlawed all campaign finance contributions tomorrow, exactly how would anyone’s free speech be repressed?