I’m not really understanding the money/speech thing; anywhere else a politician stands on a street corner on a soapbox and the tv people broadcast it. The soapbox costs maybe a dollar.
Like that great evil that’s forced on the rest of the developed, democratic world - UHC!!1!, limited funding works in a variety of ways all around the world.
No. And I also can’t point out any examples of somebody saying money isn’t a religion or a petition or a firearm. Does that mean the Second Amendment protects money?
I can’t point to anybody bothering to argue against the idea of money being speech because up until fairly recently nobody had ever suggested money was a form of speech. It’s not exactly an obvious equivalence. I have money in my wallet right now but it’s not saying a word.
The TV costs a lot more. And since no station can be forced to carry your speech, it’s an in kind contribution.
You mean limited speech. It “works” in the sense that the Muslim world’s anti-AIDS efforts have worked.
In many of that “developed, democratic world” countries you can be put in jail if you say something that the establishment doesn’t approve of. Like in France, you can be put in jail for “offending the dignity of the republic”. Or in UK, you can be put in jail for criticizing a judge.
I’ll take the US freedom of speech instead, thank you.
Nobody had ever suggested it wasn’t.
Speech takes a lot of forms. Some is made by mouth. Some is made by hand. Some is made by computer. And some is made by spending money.
It costs money to buy guns. It costs money to buy speech that reaches the masses. You cannot be too clever by half and claim that you’re not infringing the right by limiting how much money you can spend on them. If you can do that, then you can also end abortion by saying people can’t spend money on it. Deny people right to a lawyer by saying they can’t pay one. After all, money is not abortion, it’s not guns, it’s not a lawyer, and it’s not speech.
So since money isn’t speech, the government can regulate how much Cecil is allowed to spend on the Straight Dope without infringing on Cecil’s 1st amendment rights.
The difference between speech and money is pretty obvious.
But as this thread is demonstrating there is nothing so obvious that a person can’t ignore it if he really wants to.
No, it isn’t.
Here’s an example. Tomorrow, I decide I like some candidate enough that I pay, out of my pocket, to produce and run a commercial extolling the candidate’s virtues. I see this as about as pure example of free speech as can be. You?
I have no idea what you’re talking about but lets go with it, thank you.
RE the UK: are you talking about Contempt of Court?
I think that’s what you’re doing. You’re arguing that if money is used to buy speech, it’s not really speech.
Fortunately, all nine justices of every Supreme Court in history disagree with that view. The justices who have historically supported campaign finance reform measures have done so because of their limited nature. As John Paul Stevens put it in his Citizens United dissent, the regulations were reasonable because they only limited the “time, place, and manner” of speech to prevent the appearance of corruption.
What Congress and you are looking for is so broad that even packing the courts wouldn’t work, You do need an amendment, because there are several precedents, many agreed upon by all legal scholars, that have to be overturned.
Okay, so let’s say that I and about 100 other people raise money to run an ad supporting or opposing a candidate in a UK election. I can just run that ad? No problem?
I dunno but I hope not. That would be very weird.
I have a twenty dollar bill, everybody. I’m laying on the counter! Money is speech, adaher says so! So what did I just say with that twenty dollar bill? If money is speech, then I must have said SOMETHING. Perhaps Adaher can tell me what my money just said?
Money isn’t speech, and the courts never claimed it was. Only that if money buys speech, you can’t censor the speech by starving it of the money that funds it.
Hey, money isn’t reproductive rights, so we can ban abortion simply by banning the use of money to finance abortions! Win!
“It is also an offense, though rarely invoked, to “scandalize” the court by criticizing (in Scotland, “murmuring”) judges”.
There are also blasphemy laws. Something unthinkable in the US.
Hate speech laws too.
The main difference between the UK and the US is that the UK has something called “Parliamentary Supremacy”. Parliament can pass any law that it wants. The US, by contrast, has a Congress of limited authority. It can only pass laws on subjects it has power over, and cannot violate the Bill of Rights even when passing laws on subjects it is permitted to.
What about them?
You can get thrown in jail for just saying something racist. In the US, that would never be allowed due to the 1st amendment.
I suggest the main difference is there are maybe 140 Parliamentary-style governments, and if any new country chose and stuck with something akin to the USA model I wish them well. But I don’t believe any have,
LOL. Sure. Works particularly well in a a predominantly secular society - kind of hard to find a jury to convict. Fwiw, it’s also an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down. Ditto conviction.
If money is not speech, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Simple as that. Thank you. (Took you long enough.)