# Is monetary political contributions the same as speech? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460 "2016-04-07T17:30:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/21 "2016-04-08T16:37:05Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > I’ve been having a hard time with this lately - money donated to SuperPACs and doing independent expenditures obviously have a negative effect on politics in the US but I have a hard time expressing that it isn’t the same as expressing your dissatisfaction with the government or educating the public about the issue. It seems practically the exact same as political speech which shouldn’t be limited or hindered. Its not the same because you are not limited, except in cases of medical reason, on how much speech you can say but most people are limited on how much speech they can donate in contributions. For example, you can the Koch brothers can probably talk about as loud or as long as each other. But if it comes to contributing to a political campaign, he has more voice than you by a thousandfold. A thousand of you won’t be able to make as much “speech” as one of them can if speech is money and that’s why it needs to be limited. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/22 "2016-04-08T17:49:06Z")
I also consider that donations are a form of bribery. It used to be that both unions and corporations were banned from political donations. The reasoning was that neither the shareholders nor union members were there for politics, just economics. But it is impossible to compare the economic strength of the two. Anyway, whether for the stated reason or to prevent bribery it was a good principle. Is speech free if I can bring a megaphone big enough to drown all other speakers out? Small contributors are speaking with a small voice, big ones are shouting. The only way out is public funding of all campaigns and making private funding illegal (even the candidate spending his own money). ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/23 "2016-04-08T17:49:12Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Its not the same because you are not limited, except in cases of medical reason, on how much speech you can say but most people are limited on how much speech they can donate in contributions. > > For example, you can the Koch brothers can probably talk about as loud or as long as each other. But if it comes to contributing to a political campaign, he has more voice than you by a thousandfold. A thousand of you won’t be able to make as much “speech” as one of them can if speech is money and that’s why it needs to be limited. At least this comes at the right time to fertilize my garden, but I hope you don’t believe any of it. Every year, the Baldwins and Goldbergs of the world come out with their opinion on who should be elected, and they’re given news interviews and are read by millions of twitter followers. They have a voice that is much louder than a thousand of me, and it’s got nothing to do with money. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/24 "2016-04-08T19:21:17Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I also consider that donations are a form of bribery. It used to be that both unions and corporations were banned from political donations. The reasoning was that neither the shareholders nor union members were there for politics, just economics. But it is impossible to compare the economic strength of the two. Anyway, whether for the stated reason or to prevent bribery it was a good principle. > > Is speech free if I can bring a megaphone big enough to drown all other speakers out? Small contributors are speaking with a small voice, big ones are shouting. > > The only way out is public funding of all campaigns and making private funding illegal (even the candidate spending his own money). Big ones aren’t shouting that loud. George Soros is Hillary’s top contributor so far with 7 million dollars. That is alot of money but it is only 3% of the total she has raised. In 2014 Tom Steyer was the top donor and gave 75 million to Democrat politicians but that is only 4.5% of the total they raised in that election. How much policy did Steyer’s 75 million buy? Probably nothing since Democrats lost big in 2014. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/25 "2016-04-09T18:47:30Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Its not the same because you are not limited, except in cases of medical reason, on how much speech you can say but most people are limited on how much speech they can donate in contributions. > > For example, you can the Koch brothers can probably talk about as loud or as long as each other. But if it comes to contributing to a political campaign, he has more voice than you by a thousandfold. A thousand of you won’t be able to make as much “speech” as one of them can if speech is money and that’s why it needs to be limited. And that’s why one also has freedom of the press. Which doesn’t rely on vocal cords but does require equipment and distribution which requires money to purchase. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/26 "2016-04-09T19:05:00Z")
If it is speech, it is speech that is implicitly a quid pro quo speech which is bribery, which is not legal. ---
**Author:** ![Oedipus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Oedipus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oedipus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/27 "2016-04-09T20:55:40Z")
> [@davida03801](#): > > Let me make a guess here. > > When the Koch Brothers donate money this is a bad thing and we need to limit it > However > When George Soros donates money this is good, and wow, we sure would use more of that. > > Am i reading between the lines correctly ? I don’t even particularly like George Soros. I think his influence isnt good either ---
**Author:** ![Arcite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/67e7ee/32.png) [@Arcite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arcite)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2016, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/28 "2016-04-09T23:37:15Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > We (and presumably politicians) know that campaign expenditures have very little effect on who wins, so I don’t think that it’s worth worrying that politicians are being bought. And, realistically, the money coming from businesses is also coming from the general public/work force. So really, all you’re saying is that you want to cap campaign spending, since it’s just a waste of money. > > On that basis - that campaign contributions/expenditures are a waste of resources - I’d get behind the idea of doing something. > > But, for most people, there’s some view that politicians are being bought and sold and aren’t beholden to the people. On the whole, research into that question has demonstrated it to not be true. So anyone out there who believes otherwise, then no, that’s not an argument that matches reality. Do you have any good citations to the effect that campaign expenditures have very little effect on who wins, and that research has demonstrated it’s not true that politicians are being bought and sold and aren’t beholden to the people? I have a couple of hard leftists in my family who are obsessed with those issues and constantly ranting about them, and I’d love to be able to cite some hard evidence to the contrary. ---
**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:** [April 9, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/29 "2016-04-09T23:38:34Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > If it is speech, it is speech that is implicitly a quid pro quo speech which is bribery, which is not legal. If only your opinion were a provable fact. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/30 "2016-04-10T02:00:56Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > If only your opinion were a provable fact. I’m sure it’s just the goodness of their hearts that they contribute money to the political process. Oh wait, didn’t Donald Trump himself flat out tell us that the reason he donated to Democrats over the years was to get political consideration in return? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/31 "2016-04-10T02:01:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [QUOTE=dracoi] > That’s an interesting view. What do you call it when the candidates rely on small money, and in exchange offer free health care and free college educations? Fantasy. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Or Canada. (Except for that free college tuition thing. 😉 ) Since 2004, only individuals resident in Canada can make donations to federal political parties and candidates, topped at $1,000 per candidate. Corporations, unions, and organizations cannot make federal political donations. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/32 "2016-04-10T03:49:57Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I’m sure it’s just the goodness of their hearts that they contribute money to the political process. > > Oh wait, didn’t Donald Trump himself flat out tell us that the reason he donated to Democrats over the years was to get political consideration in return? It’s as much of a bribe as a vote is. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/33 "2016-04-10T04:24:08Z")
Well obviously when seniors vote en mass against any changes in Social Security (or threaten to do so), they are engaging in bribery, which is not legal ;). ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/34 "2016-04-10T14:22:17Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > It’s as much of a bribe as a vote is. Please explain how you think this is true. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/35 "2016-04-10T14:42:43Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > If it is speech, it is speech that is implicitly a quid pro quo speech which is bribery, which is not legal. If it had wheels, then it would be a wagon, and if the wagon floated, then it would be a duck, and a duck makes quacking sounds, like a witch, and witchcraft is magic, and magic isn’t legal either! We should burn the witch. What? ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/36 "2016-04-10T18:11:43Z")
Would it help to think of this in terms not of the source but the destination, as we do? What’s regulated is political party and candidate expenditure, both in election periods and at other times. You can give as much you like (provided you’re UK-based, if not the maximum limit is £500): it’s up to the party/candidate to make sure they can accommodate money they’re offered within the expenditure limits. We don’t see this as a limit on free speech, just a practical agreement to maintain a reasonably level playing field for all participants in the political process. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/37 "2016-04-10T18:20:56Z")
The current progressive position on political contributions is nearly incoherent. Now people are claiming that giving $20 to Bernie Sanders is a bribe? Or does it just become a bribe at $200? $2000? ---
**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:** [April 10, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/38 "2016-04-10T18:51:48Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Please explain how you think this is true. If contributions to enable the press to disseminate one’s political message is an implicit bribe and thus illegal because the rational is its undue influence being exercised how does it not follow that a politician is beholden to the people that actually put him into power? A vote is a resource and if an exchange of a resource for influence is automatically illegal I don’t see how that’s false by your very initial premises. My point of view is that campaign contributions are nothing more than a means to enable press which isn’t to be regulated by the Federal government. I think it’s silly to consider free speech, press, or assembly bribery. I was merely operating from your premises. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/39 "2016-04-10T18:53:56Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Would it help to think of this in terms not of the source but the destination, as we do? What’s regulated is political party and candidate expenditure, both in election periods and at other times. You can give as much you like (provided you’re UK-based, if not the maximum limit is £500): it’s up to the party/candidate to make sure they can accommodate money they’re offered within the expenditure limits. We don’t see this as a limit on free speech, just a practical agreement to maintain a reasonably level playing field for all participants in the political process. And how do you regulate allied messengers? Do you prevent books, movies, songs, tv shows, newspapers, etc from promoting political points of views or politicians? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2016, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/40 "2016-04-10T19:11:07Z")
If we’re talking about the UK, they cap spending of third parties that promotes candidates, but exempts newspapers, the BBC, and some broadcasters. Hence Rupert Murdoch. AFAIK, the UK laws do not apply to what we call “issue ads.” So a person could run a TV documentary about why immigration is terrible near election time, but if they don’t endorse UKIP, then they’re fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=3)