# Campaign contributions are free speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729 "2004-08-20T15:47:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/21 "2004-08-20T21:42:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can Congress (or, per the exact wording, a State) enact a law which says person A can receive money from person B, but person C cannot receive money from person A? That’s unequal treatment. > > But, IANAConstitutional lawyer and I may not be interpretting that clause correctly. Are you saying that giving money to a candidate is an equal protection issue, or that it’s a free speech issue which also deserves equal protection? I do think the equal protection argument is one worth debating (and will gladly do so if you wish), but I’m more interested in why money=free speech in the first place. I still haven’t seen a response that addresses that issue specifically. That’s why I didn’t understand (and still don’t) where Nader comes into this. Those flyers, full page ads, television commercials, etc., can promote Nader’s stance on issues as well as Kerry’s and Bush’s. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/22 "2004-08-20T21:53:35Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Are you saying that giving money to a candidate is an equal protection issue, or that it’s a free speech issue which also deserves equal protection? I do think the equal protection argument is one worth debating (and will gladly do so if you wish), but I’m more interested in why money=free speech in the first place. I still haven’t seen a response that addresses that issue specifically. Just looking at the Equal Protection angle. No need to hijack your thread if that doesn’t interest you. > [@](#): > > That’s why I didn’t understand (and still don’t) where Nader comes into this. Those flyers, full page ads, television commercials, etc., can promote Nader’s stance on issues as well as Kerry’s and Bush’s. “Nader” in my scenarios is just a random politician. Could’ve been anyone. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/23 "2004-08-20T22:03:24Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Just looking at the Equal Protection angle. No need to hijack your thread if that doesn’t interest you. Actually, I did intend for this thread to be purely about the money angle, as that’s the most often trotted out excuse that I’ve seen. The other thread regarding CFR actually prompted this thread (although it’s been used in the past and bothered me equally then). The original intent was admittedly sort of a “Put up or shut up” invitation to that one specific argument. I’m not convinced that I’ve seen a lot of statements of the “put up” variety yet. Your reasoning against CFR on the other hand deserves to be addressed, and perhaps we can take it up in that thread. I’m mulling over it as I type this. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/24 "2004-08-20T22:07:10Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > If I give you money, you have no idea what the hell I’m saying other than “I want to give you money”, but if you actually use that money to send a message, whether for a stamp for your letter which outlines your stance, or for a full page ad in USA Today, then you’re actually saying something, which indeed should be protected. But contributions aren’t us making their yacht payments for them. Contributions are _campaign_ contributions, which are used to pay for those full page ads, TV ads, and trotting your candidate around the country meeting people. Campaign contributions are exactly what you mean by “saying something.” ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/25 "2004-08-20T22:13:04Z")
Lastest round of campaign finance restrictions are enacted and upheld by the court. They basically say political contributions aren’t a form of protected free speech - but don’t restrict an individual from spending their own money on their political campaigns. Regulations that make political ads from independent groups illegal weeks before an election give even more power to editorialists and advocates in the media. Special interest groups like the NRA, start shopping for a TV station to get around the laws. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/26 "2004-08-20T23:24:35Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > But contributions aren’t us making their yacht payments for them. Contributions are _campaign_ contributions, which are used to pay for those full page ads, TV ads, and trotting your candidate around the country meeting people. Campaign contributions are exactly what you mean by “saying something.” This still doesn’t answer the question. How in the world does George know what my “speech” is when I send him a $20? I have no desire to prevent you from speaking his or Kerry’s praises, nor am I sure I want to prevent you from sending them billions of dollars. I just want to know how sending him money is speech. The first amendment protects **my** right to free speech, and it protects **Bush’s** right to free speech. I still haven’t seen any evidence that it protects **my** right to make **Bush’s** voice louder. I can freely speak on his behalf (or against him), using all the money I have to do so. He can do the same. Where is free speech being infringed? John Mace, since you seem to at least understand my argument, help me out here if you can. What is it about my argument that makes it so difficult to for people to address directly? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/27 "2004-08-21T01:31:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But then you just give a big advantage to someone who is already rich and who wants to run for office. That loophole also needs to be closed. A rich person using his money to get elected is financing a campaign, namely his own. The same rules should apply to financing **that** campaign with his money as it would with any other campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/28 "2004-08-21T11:25:23Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > An extremely blunt instrument, at best. It’s a big leap to assume that giving money = corruption. Better to keep everything above board and let the people decide if they want to vote for a guy who gets $5M from Giganto Megacorp, Inc. If only we had that choice. Instead, we get to pick between the guy who gets $5M from Giganto and the guy who gets $5M from Conglomo. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/29 "2004-08-21T11:29:59Z")
Sometimes, the same guy gets $5M from both. And sometimes, both guys get $5M from just one. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/30 "2004-08-21T15:35:22Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > This still doesn’t answer the question. How in the world does George know what my “speech” is when I send him a $20? I have no desire to prevent you from speaking his or Kerry’s praises, nor am I sure I want to prevent you from sending them billions of dollars. I just want to know how sending him money is speech. > > The first amendment protects **my** right to free speech, and it protects **Bush’s** right to free speech. I still haven’t seen any evidence that it protects **my** right to make **Bush’s** voice louder. I can freely speak on his behalf (or against him), using all the money I have to do so. He can do the same. Where is free speech being infringed? Let’s say that you are deeply committed to the protection of the Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka. So deeply committed that you want to raise the issue in the public consciousness. But you’ve got a problem: you’ve only got $20 with which to do so – nowhere near enough to effectively broadcast a message. So what do you do? You call up some of your fellow Staring-Frog lovers, most of whom are similarly cash-strapped, and have them all pitch in so you can run a newspaper ad. Pretty soon, based on calls from your initial ad, you see that there’s a lot of Staring-Frog lovers out there who care deeply about their plight. You form a political organization, Up With Staring Frogs, dedicated to promoting pro-Staring-Frog policies. You collect money from lots of contributors, mostly in the $20 range, in waging your campaign. Now say the government banned contributions to political organizations. Granted, each of the UWSF members can still speak to the extent his $20 will allow. But this is still, to my mind, a first amendment violation. Effective deployment of political speech inevitably requires the pooling of resources. Most folks aren’t Steve Forbes; they can’t self-finance entire campaigns. Money is speech because that is how those resources are pooled. To disallow that pooling is effectively a muzzle on political speech. You ask how Bush knows what your speech is when you send him $20. That’s easy. Your speech is “please vote for Mr. Bush in November.” And your $20 isn’t so much a matter of making Mr. Bush’s voice louder as it is adding your voice to the chorus of people saying “please vote for Mr. Bush in November.” You are exercising your free speech rights by contributing to that campaign every bit as much as when your friends at UWSF helped buy that newspaper ad. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/31 "2004-08-21T17:05:25Z")
Artifical persons should not be allowed to contribute to election campaigns. Artificial persons do not need first amendment protections. APs should likewise be banned from lobbying legislatures. Artificial persons should be limited to lobbying the electorate. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/32 "2004-08-21T19:15:58Z")
Dewey Cheatem Undhow, I’m okay with sending it to the issue-based organizations as noted above, as this at least has the semblance of speech in my opinion. I just don’t see that sending it directly to the candidate is the same thing. I do see that a slippery slope type argument could take one from donating based on an issue all the way to donating because you agree with his stance on all issues, but I don’t give slippery slope arguments much weight until something actually begins the downhill descent. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully aware that even the NEA and ACLU are against me on this, and I support both of them. I just happen to think they are supporting it out of self-interest, not due to protecting free-speech in this case. There are quite a few ACLU folks who agree with me, and even the majority of the Supremes seem to be on board with me. This obviously doesn’t make me right, but it does show that this is not a cut and dry issue. I will admit that the " ‘please vote for Mr. Bush in November’ as speech" argument is at least mildly persuasive, but since there is nothing preventing me from saying that, even to a fairly large audience if I put in minimal effort, I don’t see it as compelling enough to need first amendment protection. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/33 "2004-08-21T20:24:59Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Artifical persons should not be allowed to contribute to election campaigns. Artificial persons do not need first amendment protections. APs should likewise be banned from lobbying legislatures. > Artificial persons should be limited to lobbying the electorate. Artificial persons like…Up With Staring Frogs? Or, more to the point, NARAL or the NRA? “Artificial persons” are legal constructs designed to protect the underlying rights of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/34 "2004-08-21T20:33:17Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’m okay with sending it to the issue-based organizations as noted above, as this at least has the semblance of speech in my opinion. I just don’t see that sending it directly to the candidate is the same thing. I do see that a slippery slope type argument could take one from donating based on an issue all the way to donating because you agree with his stance on all issues, but I don’t give slippery slope arguments much weight until something actually begins the downhill descent. What’s the difference? The issue in an election is who should be the person selected for a leadership position in government. That’s as least arguably as important as protecting the Mexican Staring Frog. > [@DMC](#): > > I will admit that the " ‘please vote for Mr. Bush in November’ as speech" argument is at least mildly persuasive, but since there is nothing preventing me from saying that, even to a fairly large audience if I put in minimal effort, I don’t see it as compelling enough to need first amendment protection. 1. I dispute the notion that you could say that “to a fairly large audience” with little in the way of cash outlays. 2. Even if I accept that as true, you can also say “protect the Mexican Staring Frog of Southern Sri Lanka” to similar audiences with similar efforts. Why is one different from the other? The beauty of the first amendment is that it doesn’t require you to show your speech is “compelling” in order to gain its protections. It protects all speech, and especially political speech, and it doesn’t matter whether you think the most important public policy choice facing the country is the protection of the Staring Frog or the reelection of George W. Bush. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/35 "2004-08-21T20:37:47Z")
Everybody’s talking about sending $20 to your favorite candidate or a 527 that supports him or an interest-group like the NRA or ACLU, and you’re all dancing around the real problem: It’s not those $20 individual contributions that are corrupting the system, it’s the much vaster contributions from established business interests. From _The Next American Nation,_ by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259: > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporation, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . **Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, "The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office."** > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” > > One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies. > > Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significiant influence on public policy. If all of this money is _not_ buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year. Now, all of these figures are from 1995 or earlier and might need updating. But I can’t believe the importance of money in American elections has **diminished** in the past nine years, even after the McCain-Feingold bill. You can’t get much more libertarian than Barry Goldwater. And even he was horrified at what money has done to American politics! From pp. 311-313: > [@](#): > > Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, _Buckley v. Valeo,_ the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what _Dred Scott_ was to abolitionism. In _The Yale Law Review,_ Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the _Buckley_ decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . . > > It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. **The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.** > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. **The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the _content_ of speech – only its volume, as it were.** It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich plaintiff to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/36 "2004-08-21T20:56:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Everybody’s talking about sending $20 to your favorite candidate or a 527 that supports him or an interest-group like the NRA or ACLU, and you’re all dancing around the real problem: It’s not those $20 individual contributions that are corrupting the system, it’s the much vaster contributions from established business interests. The question was “is money speech?” The analysis on that question remains the same whether a contribution is $20 or $20,000. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/37 "2004-08-21T21:01:05Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The question was “is money speech?” The analysis on that question remains the same whether a contribution is $20 or $20,000. The principle might be the same but the **problem** isn’t. In any case, the solution Lind proposes, and which I support, would get both big money and small money out of elections. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/38 "2004-08-21T21:19:47Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The beauty of the first amendment is that it doesn’t require you to show your speech is “compelling” in order to gain its protections. It protects all speech, and especially political speech, and it doesn’t matter whether you think the most important public policy choice facing the country is the protection of the Staring Frog or the reelection of George W. Bush. Using your arguments I don’t see it as a protection of free speech. I see it as a protection of making sure your speech is heard far and wide. I’m just not convinced that that is, or that it needs to be, protected. I certainly don’t get the impression from the first amendment that it guarantees the freedom to be heard by as large of an audience as one desires, simply that you are allowed to say anything you want, within the restrictions that have since been set by the courts. In other words, it protects speech, but does not guarantee a widespread distribution method of that speech. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/39 "2004-08-21T21:32:05Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Using your arguments I don’t see it as a protection of free speech. I see it as a protection of making sure your speech is heard far and wide. I’m just not convinced that that is, or that it needs to be, protected. I certainly don’t get the impression from the first amendment that it guarantees the freedom to be heard by as large of an audience as one desires, simply that you are allowed to say anything you want, within the restrictions that have since been set by the courts. > > In other words, it protects speech, but does not guarantee a widespread distribution method of that speech. So, if the government only allowed me to speak in a locked room with no observers, is it still protecting my free speech since I can say whatever I want? Communication is part of speech. Without an audience, speech is meaningless. Deliberately infringing on my ability to find an audience is an infringement on my right to speak. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729/40 "2004-08-21T22:36:41Z")
I don’t see it as infringing on your right to find an audience, as it doesn’t. I just don’t see the first amendment as a **supplement** to your ability to find that audience. That’s what you’re wanting to use it for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-contributions-are-free-speech/260729.md?page=3)