# If money is speech, and speech is money... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2016, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523 "2016-02-08T08:52:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/82 "2016-02-09T03:43:22Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Money is not speech, but it is a necessary prerequisite for speech. Nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/83 "2016-02-09T03:48:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Nonsense. Well, that’s a rather compelling argument. In all seriousness if you think you don’t need money to successfully political beliefs except for a small number of limited instances you’re ignoring reality. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/84 "2016-02-09T04:17:35Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > So then, since Michael Moore has all but admitted that he made the movie Fahrenheit 911 in hopes that it would help defeat George Bush and did in fact provide free screenings for it at various campuses and encourage people to bring people to said screenings in hopes that they would convince people to vote against them, then you do feel that under Citizens United, then he and the company that made the movie Fahrenheit 911 should have been sanctioned? Possibly - but I understand that Citizens United lost a lawsuit against Fahrenheit 911 because the court found that the movie wasn’t electioneering. By hold on to your hat, because this part is obviously going to blow your mind, given the questions you’ve asked me: I think Michael Moore and David Bossie should abide by exactly the same set of rules. Are you still with me? No feeling of impending doom? > [@](#): > > Do you think Regnery Publishing should have been sanctioned? > > If not, please explain why? I don’t know the facts surrounding the book. It’s like you’re asking me if Roger James of Portland, Oregon should have been convicted of robbery in 2004. How the hell should I know? > [@](#): > > Obviously, most of us don’t like the idea of book burning and think the government shouldn’t be doing it. Perhaps you could explain why you do favor the sanctioning of the effective banning of books and movies critical of political candidates? Obviously, most Americans don’t support elimination of child labor laws. Perhaps you can explain why you favor the effective indentured servitude of first grade children to Republican billionaires who want to eliminate poor people through racist policies? (See, I can poison the well and strawman just as well as you can!) > [@](#): > > Would you also apply this to all groups, including media groups like say Fox News or MSNBC as well? Are they engaged in electioneering? Give me some examples. > [@Blake](#): > > Would you also be OK with the author of a book being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute books to voters in some kind of coordinated way? > Would you also be OK with the author of a magazine being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute magazines to voters in some kind of coordinated way? > Would you also be OK with the author of a magazine \*article \*being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute articles to voters in some kind of coordinated way? > Would you also be OK with the author of a leaflet being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute leaflets to voters in some kind of coordinated way? > Would you also be OK with the author of a song being subject to financial penalties if the plan was to distribute the song to voters in some kind of coordinated way? > Because I don’t see any obvious difference in \*kind \*between any of these activities. Yet it seems that you would end up endorsing the governments right to fine people for handing out leaflets or chanting slogans. > > I assume you see some sort of line somewhere on the spectrum between leaflets and slogans and DVDs. Can you tell us where that line is and why you placed it there? I’m not particularly interested in providing answer to endless hypothetical scenarios – “Well, what if the book has a BLUE cover? And what if Michael Moore wrote it?? Gotcha ya!” Suffice it to say that I think people with common sense can generally tell the difference between political campaigns and selling books or magazines. Nobody wanders in to a campaign office thinking that it is a Barnes and Noble, whether that office is funded by regulated donations to a candidate or by an anonymous billionaire. Somehow we manage to have a system in which campaign contributions to candidates is generally adequately regulated, and nobody is asking whether a non-citizen is allowed to loan a cup of sugar to his neighbor who is a candidate for political office without the FEC deploying a SWAT team. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/85 "2016-02-09T04:47:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By hold on to your hat, because this part is obviously going to blow your mind, given the questions you’ve asked me: I think Michael Moore and David Bossie should abide by exactly the same set of rules. > > Are you still with me? No feeling of impending doom? I’m sure you think you’re being clever but I don’t think your view is shared. > [@](#): > > Are they engaged in electioneering? Give me some examples. Ah, so then you seem to be conceding that if Fox News or MSNBC engaged in behavior that bureaucrats for the FEC determined to be “electioneering” then they could and should be sanctioned in your opinion? Is that a correct reading of your beliefs? > [@](#): > > Nobody wanders in to a campaign office thinking that it is a Barnes and Noble, whether that office is funded by regulated donations to a candidate or by an anonymous billionaire. Somehow we manage to have a system in which campaign contributions to candidates is generally adequately regulated, I’m afraid you’ve just made it clear you didn’t understand how McCain-Feingold changed the landscape, because the law drastically altered the way in which it could be determined what did and didn’t constitute a “campaign contribution” by essentially giving the FEC broad authority to determine what communications did and didn’t constitute “electioneering” activity. Under McCain-Feingold they could essentially classify anything they determined to be for the purpose of agitating for or against political candidates and sanction those who made it. Obviously to most reasonable people this makes a mockery of the idea of free speech and it’s also quite asinine to suggest that prohibiting the government from being able to do so, since of course the United States managed to survive into the first Bush administration without having McCain-Feingold in place. You seem to think that it should be rather obvious what is “electioneering” activity that should be regulated and what shouldn’t be and are refusing to answer specific questions because in doing so you’d have to start explaining why say a documentary criticizing George Bush should not be sanctioned while a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton should be. That’s the way it always is when you decide to start censoring things. It’s rather easy to believe that people are “abusing free speech” and the book burners, whether they’re targets be blasphemy, “hate speech”, Muhammad cartoons, pornography, or “electioneering” materials, in the end, the defense is always the same. “Think of the children”. Thankfully, at least for now, in Citizens United the book burners were defeated and left beaten, whipped and whimpering. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/86 "2016-02-09T04:55:00Z")
Do you think the United Kingdom is an unfree country? Sure sounds like it. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2016, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/87 "2016-02-09T05:02:12Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Nonsense. Can you describe a world of “free speech” in which one cannot spend any money to produce political speech? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/88 "2016-02-09T05:04:58Z")
By the way, in that little speech you gave there, you should really up the hyperbole a bit. Calling the 85% of Americans who dislike our election laws “book burners” is pretty inflammatory, but I bet you could do better. Try “thought Nazis.” Or maybe they are “promoting the genocide of opinions.” Or perhaps they are “Constitution rapists.” Seriously, your posts need a little more oomph! ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/89 "2016-02-09T05:48:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By the way, in that little speech you gave there, you should really up the hyperbole a bit. Calling the 85% of Americans who dislike our election laws “book burners” is pretty inflammatory, but I bet you could do better. Try “thought Nazis.” Or maybe they are “promoting the genocide of opinions.” Or perhaps they are “Constitution rapists.” > > Seriously, your posts need a little more oomph! That is the goal isn’t it? To dis-empower either by shame, ridicule, threats of violence, or the force of the state opposing viewpoints. The real tragedy was 4 of the 9 justices are too stupid or too partisan to not recognize that the government can not be trusted to regulate speech. Nor does it have the legitimate power to do so. ---
**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:** [February 9, 2016, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/90 "2016-02-09T06:49:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By the way, in that little speech you gave there, you should really up the hyperbole a bit. Calling the 85% of Americans who dislike our election laws “book burners” is pretty inflammatory, but I bet you could do better. Try “thought Nazis.” Or maybe they are “promoting the genocide of opinions.” Or perhaps they are “Constitution rapists.” > > Seriously, your posts need a little more oomph! Cowbell. They need more cowbell. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/91 "2016-02-09T09:12:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Suffice it to say that I think people with common sense can generally tell the difference between political campaigns and selling books or magazines. Nobody wanders in to a campaign office thinking that it is a Barnes and Noble, . So you only support fining people for distributing books if they do so from a campaign office, and only support fining people for distributing films if they do so from a campaign office? You don’t support fining people for distributing books from Barnes and Noble or films from the local cinema? because if that isn’t what you believe, your comment about people mistaking a campaign office for a Barnes and Noble is a complete red herring, isn’t it? You must believe that it is the source of distribution that allows you to determine whether distribution should be fined, otherwise why would you say that it is obvious what needs to be fined based upon the source? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/92 "2016-02-09T10:43:07Z")
No, my only test would not be from what storefront the campaign materials came from. Another pretty silly set of questions. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/93 "2016-02-09T12:08:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, my only test would not be from what storefront the campaign materials came from. Then why is it relevant that someone can tell barnes and Noble from a campaign office? Is there any chance you will stop being coy and just explain to us how you decide when to fine someone for distributing written material pertaining to a politician? You’ve already told us that you believe some people \*should \*be fined for distributing written material pertaining to a politician. Can you please just tell use how you decide which people and which material, rather than implying that it’s based on the storefront, and then retreating from that when asked outright? You made a loud, declarative statement that this was an easy and clear distinction to make. So why are you being so coy about how you make that distinction? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/94 "2016-02-09T12:39:52Z")
Could the government pass a law saying that although a woman has a right to an abortion she may not spend money to have one? Could the government say that although same sex marriage is legal, no same sex couple may spend money to buy a marriage license? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/95 "2016-02-09T12:43:58Z")
That’s why the founders saw fit to add freedom of the press to the 1st amendment. Printing presses are not free. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/96 "2016-02-09T13:28:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Trinopus - You make a fair point. So, here’s my thoughts on whether a movie or book might violate campaign rules: it depends. Come on, pal. This is about whether such a rule should exist, not about existing rules. And it’s not really a “depends” answer. > [@](#): > > However, my opinion would change if the plan was to distribute DVDs to voters in some kind of coordinated way. In that case, I would be totally fine with the producers being subject to financial penalties Why? How on earth can you justify clamping down on speech based on the content of the speech or the intent of the speakers? > [@](#): > > as is generally the case with other campaign finance violations. No such violation exists for campaigns though. Campaigns are free to spend as much as they want on any kind of speech they want. Limits on spending imposed on campaigns were struck down as unconstitutional long ago. Why should it be different for anyone else? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/97 "2016-02-09T13:30:18Z")
I think most of us agree on “it depends”, but laws give authorities powers, and it’s hard to write a campaign finance law that doesn’t give the authorities the power to do things like censor movies, books, and the media. You can say you don’t support such things, but if a law allows it, then you in effect support it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/98 "2016-02-09T13:31:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Could the government pass a law saying that although a woman has a right to an abortion she may not spend money to have one? Could the government say that although same sex marriage is legal, no same sex couple may spend money to buy a marriage license? Or ban the use of money to publish a Bible? Or ban newspapers from buying ink and paper? Or ban the buying or selling of megaphones or PA systems, bus and portapotty rental, and signs or banners or material to make signs and banners just before a huge political march on Washington? Or ban the sale of internet access and website hosting? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/99 "2016-02-09T13:34:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, my only test would not be from what storefront the campaign materials came from. Another pretty silly set of questions. What kind of “storefronts” would be covered? How would that even work? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/100 "2016-02-09T13:37:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you describe a world of “free speech” in which one cannot spend any money to produce political speech? Sure! You can copy all the fliers and posters by hand instead of going to Kinkos and spending money. Oh, wait, you can’t spend money on paper or markers. Never mind. /sarcasm off/ The sad thing about those who oppose the Citizen’ United decision or say “money isn’t speech” is that they must embrace the most ridiculously judicial conservative interpretation of the First Amendment - that “speech” only means the act of a human being using his or her voice. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/101 "2016-02-09T13:38:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > By the way, in that little speech you gave there, you should really up the hyperbole a bit. Calling the 85% of Americans who dislike our election laws “book burners” is pretty inflammatory, but I bet you could do better. Try “thought Nazis.” Or maybe they are “promoting the genocide of opinions.” Or perhaps they are “Constitution rapists.” > > Seriously, your posts need a little more oomph! You should just forbid him from spending money on his comments. That would solve the problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=6)