# 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:** 7
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/122 "2016-02-09T18:33:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > DADT was law for something like 20-plus years. I think that legitimately qualifies as a ban, as opposed to the 30 day window for restrictions on independent expenditures. It just isn’t comparable. A 30- day window that retricts political speech _right before an election_ is an awful big 30 days. The First Amendment makes no exceptions for “just 30 days.” It’s free speech. Just allow it and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/123 "2016-02-09T18:43:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > it’s like a NHL player has been banned from the sport every time they are sent off for two minutes. No, it’s like saying a NHL player is allowed to play in a match… but only when the umpire isn’t looking. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/124 "2016-02-09T18:58:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > A 30- day window that retricts political speech _right before an election_ is an awful big 30 days. > > The First Amendment makes no exceptions for “just 30 days.” > > It’s free speech. Just allow it and move on. I recognize that you substantively disagree with me; but just because we don’t agree doesn’t provide license for you to exaggerate and use words deceptively. We are on the same page that “money is speech” is sloppy and misleading. Similarly, using words like “ban,” which implies permanence, is also sloppy and misleading. And let’s be clear: you are the one using word games. If you didn’t use such intentionally sloppy language, I wouldn’t have to point out that you are doing so. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/125 "2016-02-09T19:01:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I recognize that you substantively disagree with me; but just because we don’t agree doesn’t provide license for you to exaggerate and use words deceptively. Let’s move on. > [@](#): > > We are on the same page that “money is speech” is sloppy and misleading. Similarly, using words like “ban,” which implies permanence, is also sloppy and misleading. And let’s be clear: you are the one using word games. If you didn’t use such intentionally sloppy language, I wouldn’t have to point out that you are doing so. Enough. Get off the word “ban.” I’m off it. I deliberately stated my questions without that word in it. Do you think a restriction on the ability to spend money on speech that makes it nearly impossible to broadcast that speech is justifiable simply because it is for 30 days instead of longer? Why? ---
**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, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/126 "2016-02-09T19:07:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > If the government were to put someone in jail or fine them for spending money to make a film because that film was political, would you be okay with that? I don’t think that making a “political” film is the issue at all – my beef is with materials that relate to advocating for or against a particular candidate, especially when the producer is more or less acting like a surrogate for another candidate. Yes, I would be okay with fines, but not jail time, for an independent expenditures group attempting to use a film shortly before an election to advocate for a particular candidate _under certain, but not all, circumstances._ As I have repeatedly said in this thread – I don’t know how to make it any clearer – I’m not particularly bothered by a filmmaker showing such a film in a theater where people pay to go see it. I do think it crosses a line if the film would be distributed in a way that makes it effectively an advertisement. An example of this would include distributing thousands of DVDs to voters in a targeted area, etc. I do not believe that the simple act of producing a film – writing the script, hiring actors, shooting scenes, editing, etc is ever going to be a campaign finance violation. Frankly, I think it’s pretty silly of you to ask such a preposterous question. My issue is with the distribution of it, particularly to the extent that a film walks, talks, and quacks like a political advertisement. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/127 "2016-02-09T19:11:39Z")
**lance** , let me ask you a question: do you believe that people should be able to make unlimited contributions to a candidate? Do you think corporations, unions, and similar entities should be able to make contributions, perhaps unlimited, to a candidate? ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/128 "2016-02-09T19:15:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t think that making a “political” film is the issue at all It’s the issue in the case! > [@](#): > > - my beef is with materials that relate to advocating for or against a particular candidate, especially when the producer is more or less acting like a surrogate for another candidate. Yes - such as a political film. As for surrogacy, the idea that any time you talk about a candidate it makes you a surrogate is just whack. > [@](#): > > Yes, I would be okay with fines, but not jail time, for an independent expenditures group attempting to use a film shortly before an election to advocate for a particular candidate _under certain, but not all, circumstances._ What circumstances exactly? > [@](#): > > As I have repeatedly said in this thread – I don’t know how to make it any clearer – I’m not particularly bothered by a filmmaker showing such a film in a theater where people pay to go see it. I do think it crosses a line if the film would be distributed in a way that makes it effectively an advertisement. An example of this would include distributing thousands of DVDs to voters in a targeted area, etc. But you can’t possibly make that distinction! Not only is it still a total violation of the First Amendment, it is completely impractical. But never mind - it’s a total violation of the First Amendment. You can’t declare that someone can’t distribute DVDs just because you don’t like the fact that they talk about politics before an election. It’s just absurd that you don’t see that it’s a blatant violation of freedom of speech. > [@](#): > > I do not believe that the simple act of producing a film – writing the script, hiring actors, shooting scenes, editing, etc is ever going to be a campaign finance violation. Frankly, I think it’s pretty silly of you to ask such a preposterous question. My issue is with the distribution of it, particularly to the extent that a film walks, talks, and quacks like a political advertisement. But if it were made a violation, would you oppose that? And would you agree that it is unconstitutional? The whole premise behind your argument - or at least many who oppose the CU decision - is that it is okay to regulate money spent on speech. What possible grounds do you have for saying regulating money spent on making a film is different? Even if you don’t think it will happen, or wouldn’t want it to, how can you possibly reconcile it with your other views? If the government can regulate money spent on speech, then it could regulate money spent on making a film. Or publishing a book. Or… ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/129 "2016-02-09T19:17:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **lance** , let me ask you a question: do you believe that people should be able to make unlimited contributions to a candidate? Do you think corporations, unions, and similar entities should be able to make contributions, perhaps unlimited, to a candidate? Not unlimited. Donations are an entirely different thing. This isn’t about donations, it’s about spending. Do you believe you have a right to spend your money on speech in any way you want at any time? What if you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate - are you a “surrogate” for that candidate? Should that also be banned 30 days before an election? ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/130 "2016-02-09T19:25:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > As for surrogacy, the idea that any time you talk about a candidate it makes you a surrogate is just whack. I think you’re living on another planet if you don’t believe that independent expenditures are being used to evade limitations on candidate’s campaigns. > [@](#): > > But you can’t possibly make that distinction! Not only is it still a total violation of the First Amendment, it is completely impractical. But never mind - it’s a total violation of the First Amendment. You can’t declare that someone can’t distribute DVDs just because you don’t like the fact that they talk about politics before an election. It’s just absurd that you don’t see that it’s a blatant violation of freedom of speech. Let me say this again: I recognize what the Supreme Court says, and what the law is, but I do not agree with it. I totally understand that the Court has made its ruling, but I think that the influence of campaign money on the very foundations of our elections and system of government is pernicious and getting worse. I cannot live under the fiction that everything is okay because the Supreme Court said the law means a certain thing. > [@](#): > > But if it were made a violation, would you oppose that? And would you agree that it is unconstitutional? Yes, I agree that prohibiting a filmmaker from making a film is not cool at all. > [@](#): > > The whole premise behind your argument - or at least many who oppose the CU decision - is that it is okay to regulate money spent on speech. What possible grounds do you have for saying regulating money spent on making a film is different? Even if you don’t think it will happen, or wouldn’t want it to, how can you possibly reconcile it with your other views? If the government can regulate money spent on speech, then it could regulate money spent on making a film. Or publishing a book. Or… Are you saying that it is a slippery slope? That if we regulate money spent on campaigns, next we will be regulating money spent on baby food… and who is in favor of starving babies? Christ, dude, you need to study a book of logical fallacies some time. You’ve made several good points in this thread, but they are buried within a deep forest of poor arguments. In fact, I think you may have inadvertently hit upon all the major informal fallacies so far – poisoning the well, equivocation, slippery slope… the list goes on and on. ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/131 "2016-02-09T19:26:25Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Do you believe you have a right to spend your money on speech in any way you want at any time? Like walking-around money? Bribes to officials? No, those aren’t protected by free speech. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/132 "2016-02-09T20:00:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think you’re living on another planet if you don’t believe that independent expenditures are being used to evade limitations on candidate’s campaigns. And you’ve changed the subject AGAIN. Do you believe that EVERY time someone speaks about a candidate they are working on a candidate’s behalf? Do you believe ALL cases of speaking about a candidate that involve money should be regulated just in case some are being used to evade the limits? > [@](#): > > Let me say this again: I recognize what the Supreme Court says, and what the law is, but I do not agree with it. I totally understand that the Court has made its ruling, but I think that the influence of campaign money on the very foundations of our elections and system of government is pernicious and getting worse. I cannot live under the fiction that everything is okay because the Supreme Court said the law means a certain thing. But what you are saying is not that you disagree with the court’s logic - you’re saying you don’t like the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > Yes, I agree that prohibiting a filmmaker from making a film is not cool at all. “Not cool” isn’t good enough. It is forbidden. And by your logic - that it is okay to regulate speech through money, it would be allowed. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that it is a slippery slope? That if we regulate money spent on campaigns, next we will be regulating money spent on baby food… and who is in favor of starving babies? Are you saying we should give the government vast powers to ignore the First Amendment and just hope they don’t abuse them further? > [@](#): > > Christ, dude, you need to study a book of logical fallacies some time. You’ve made several good points in this thread, but they are buried within a deep forest of poor arguments. In fact, I think you may have inadvertently hit upon all the major informal fallacies so far – poisoning the well, equivocation, slippery slope… the list goes on and on. Bullshit. I know my fallacies. You’ve been trying to nitpick so you can evade the questions. Your whole argument is corrupt to the core. You don’t like the First Amendment. It’s that simple. You think the government should regulate certain speech because you don’t like the fact that money is involved with it. That’s a crock. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/133 "2016-02-09T20:03:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Like walking-around money? Bribes to officials? No, those aren’t protected by free speech. Talk about your fallacies. We both know I wasn’t talking about that. Please stop playing games. And please stop ignoring questions. Heres’ the rest of mine: What if you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate - are you a “surrogate” for that candidate? Should that also be banned 30 days before an election? ---
**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, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/134 "2016-02-09T20:06:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Let’s move on. > > Enough. > > Get off the word “ban.” I’m off it. I deliberately stated my questions without that word in it. > > Do you think a restriction on the ability to spend money on speech that makes it nearly impossible to broadcast that speech is justifiable simply because it is for 30 days instead of longer? Why? Actually, it’s for longer than just “30 days”. It’s 30 days before ANY primary or caucus not just the main election. In short, if the FEC determined that Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 911 for the purpose of “advocating for or against George Bush”(AKA electioneering) then virtually all of 2004 it would have, at the very least, been empowered to ban all advertising for the movie. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/135 "2016-02-09T20:08:32Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Actually, it’s for longer than just “30 days”. It’s 30 days before ANY primary or caucus not just the main election. In short, if the FEC determined that Michael Moore made Fahrenheit 911 for the purpose of “advocating for or against George Bush”(AKA electioneering) then virtually all of 2004 it would have, at the very least, been empowered to ban all advertising for the movie. Good point, thanks. ---
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/136 "2016-02-09T22:24:59Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And you’ve changed the subject AGAIN. Am I supposed to only post replies to your questions? You know, in a debate, sometimes I get to say what’s on my mind. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that EVERY time someone speaks about a candidate they are working on a candidate’s behalf? Do you believe ALL cases of speaking about a candidate that involve money should be regulated just in case some are being used to evade the limits? Again with lame questions. Is killing a person ALWAYS murder? No. Is giving money to a candidate ALWAYS legal? No. You’re asking absolutist questions, and it is silly. > [@](#): > > But what you are saying is not that you disagree with the court’s logic - you’re saying you don’t like the First Amendment… You don’t like the First Amendment. It’s that simple… More poisoning the well. Yawn. > [@](#): > > “Not cool” isn’t good enough. Aaaand you’re back to word games. It’s like Ted Cruz, who criticizes Obama for not saying “radical extremist Muslims.” Yawn. > [@](#): > > Are you saying we should give the government vast powers to ignore the First Amendment and just hope they don’t abuse them further? Another ridiculous question. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. I know my fallacies. You’ve been trying to nitpick so you can evade the questions. Your whole argument is corrupt to the core. I think I’ve been very clear with my responses, but I’m not going to spend time writing out thoughtful responses to silly questions. > [@](#): > > What if you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate - are you a “surrogate” for that candidate? Should that also be banned 30 days before an election? I said various stripes of PACs are surrogates for candidates’ official campaigns. Where you get the idea that voters are surrogates… well, another silly question. But just because you get soooooo upset when you ask a rediculous question and don’t get an obvious response: No, people can put a bumper sticker on their car any time. Because it beggars my wildest imagination why you think a voter is a PAC. So the other question you didn’t repeat was – and I’ll rephrase it slightly so it makes more sense – whether people can spend money on things that are legal to spend money on: the answer is yes. But I should caveat that if people want to spend money on things that they aren’t allowed to spend money on, then they can’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/137 "2016-02-10T00:53:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I said various stripes of PACs are surrogates for candidates’ official campaigns. Where you get the idea that voters are surrogates… well, another silly question. But just because you get soooooo upset when you ask a rediculous question and don’t get an obvious response: No, people can put a bumper sticker on their car any time. Because it beggars my wildest imagination why you think a voter is a PAC. > > So the other question you didn’t repeat was – and I’ll rephrase it slightly so it makes more sense – whether people can spend money on things that are legal to spend money on: the answer is yes. But I should caveat that if people want to spend money on things that they aren’t allowed to spend money on, then they can’t do that. So will I be able to get together with my friends to have a bake sale, and pool our money to create a giant tupee-shaped banner labeled “Trump the Stumpy Chump”, to drag below the hot air balloon we will rent for the purpose? We are thinking of doing it sometime in the last 30 days before the election, so, need answer fast, we have to bake the cookies and reserve the balloon. ---
**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 10, 2016, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/138 "2016-02-10T00:56:59Z")
At this point, I’m just going to give the answers that folks want me to give. You will all be shot on sight by the FEC Delta Force. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2016, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/139 "2016-02-10T03:04:37Z")
I would like to make a crowd-sourcing campaign to fund a YouTube TV series parody of Apocalypto, starring a super buff Ted Cruz look-alike. Are we a PAC? Where exactly will your censors intervene? The crowd-sourcing platform? YouTube? The publisher? Individual donors? What if all of the hosting, organizing, and funding is done outside of the US? ---
**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 10, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/140 "2016-02-10T03:13:01Z")
The censors will intervene as soon as the thought occurs to you. All mental activity relating to Ted Cruz is a thought crime. Those who confess are sentenced to spending a week with Ted Cruz. Those who don’t confess and are found guilty are sentenced to roaming the Alaskan countryside, with your only warmth provided by burning the Constitution. There is no more YouTube in the future, because cat videos are no longer protected speech. ---
**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 10, 2016, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523/141 "2016-02-10T14:27:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Am I supposed to only post replies to your questions? You know, in a debate, sometimes I get to say what’s on my mind. Not only replies - but yeah, replies. > [@](#): > > Again with lame questions. Is killing a person ALWAYS murder? No. Is giving money to a candidate ALWAYS legal? No. You’re asking absolutist questions, and it is silly. For God’s sake, explain how the hell those things apply to this situation please. You are playing the game where you point out that there are exceptions, and then you think that means they justify any damn exception you care to make up. No. > [@](#): > > So the other question you didn’t repeat was – and I’ll rephrase it slightly so it makes more sense – whether people can spend money on things that are legal to spend money on: the answer is yes. But I should caveat that if people want to spend money on things that they aren’t allowed to spend money on, then they can’t do that. More circular argument. We are discussing whether the law should allow people to spend money on things, not what it currently allows. You are dodging the questiions again. I think I’ve made my point. You can’t answer the core question here - how can you possibly justify restrictions on spending on speech on First Amendment grounds? It can’t be done, because there’s no way to say you’re not trying to restrict speech itself. You care about the volume and source of speech, and the “undue influence” it brings. You simply cannot regulate speech based on those things under the First Amendment. Stop trying to insert yourself into democracy. It is not your business how others vote, or why, or what speech the listen to or use to make their decisions. It is not your place to say that voters made the wrong choices based on speech, or “influence.” That’ why we have freedom of speech. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-money-is-speech-and-speech-is-money/745523.md?page=8)