# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/41 "2016-04-11T13:38:15Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 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. Why is it a partisan issue then? The right argues for unlimited spending and the left argues against it, as we can see even in this thread. That doesn’t suggest that both sides get the same benefit from it. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/42 "2016-04-11T13:52:51Z")
My employer makes monetary political contributions to me on a bi-weekly basis, but I still have to pay taxes on that money, unlike the speech he provides at random intervals. So I’d say they are not the same thing. ---
**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 11, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/43 "2016-04-11T15:51:01Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Why is it a partisan issue then? The right argues for unlimited spending and the left argues against it, as we can see even in this thread. That doesn’t suggest that both sides get the same benefit from it. It also doesn’t suggest that both sides get different benefits from it. It also doesn’t suggest that Taylor Swift has very catchy music. We could make a list of the things it doesn’t suggest! ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/44 "2016-04-11T18:22:04Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Why is it a partisan issue then? The right argues for unlimited spending and the left argues against it, as we can see even in this thread. That doesn’t suggest that both sides get the same benefit from it. This is not a partisan issue. 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. Most elected politicians aren’t. This is a rich/poor issue far more than a Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative issue. ---
**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 11, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/45 "2016-04-11T18:39:25Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is not a partisan issue. 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. Most elected politicians aren’t. This is a rich/poor issue far more than a Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative issue. 79% of the country wouldn’t be able to explain what \*Citizens United \*did. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/46 "2016-04-11T18:40:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Obviously? Well poisoning is obvious. The negative effect not so much. [This](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) is the negative effect. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/47 "2016-04-11T19:24:20Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [This](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) is the negative effect. And the paper cited in your cite has data from 1982 to 2002. Things, especially the media market, have changed dramatically since then. For example, there is thing called the interwebs. Maybe you have heard of it. It has radically changed where people get their [news](http://www.journalism.org/2015/06/01/millennials-political-news/)and how they consume media. The [top 5 political websites](http://www.politisite.com/2015/01/23/top-10-popular-political-websites-2015/) in the U.S. are Huffington Post, The Blaze, Drudge Report, NewsMax and Politico. Huffington gets ~110 million unique viewers a month. The highest rated t.v. news show gets ~556 thousand viewers per show. Note, this is for the 25-54 age group so it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison but the numbers are interesting in that the t.v. show gets something like 17 million viewers a month. So, on that basis alone, the old thinking of ‘Rich people buy ads and control politics’ isn’t going to fly the same way it did back in the 1980s. It no longer requires tons of money to reach people. Slee ---
**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 11, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/48 "2016-04-11T19:25:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [This](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) is the negative effect. Would you care to summarize? ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/49 "2016-04-11T22:25:27Z")
> [@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. Nobody said they were though. Donations to candidates are NOT what SuperPACs do. They spend money on their own speech. That is…speech. Donations to SuperPACs are also not donations to candidates. And who are you to say they have a negative affect? ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/50 "2016-04-11T22:26:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [This](http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) is the negative effect. Any claim of a negative affect based on “I don’t like who the voters are choosing” is laughable and completely undemocratic. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/51 "2016-04-11T22:27:57Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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? It’s a bribe whenever someone they don’t like gives it to someone they don’t like. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/52 "2016-04-11T22:28:58Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > I would say no. Giving money to a campaign in exchange for anything (which many corporations do) is just bribery. We need to get big money out of elections. So if you give money to a candidate, is it bribery too? ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/53 "2016-04-11T22:31:04Z")
> [@Totenfeier](#): > > Speech is rational thought, expressed verbally, with the intention of persuading or influencing the mind of another. > > Big money is boodle intended to buy the influence of another. > > Just my 2.1 million cents. You completely miss the point. Nobody has ever said donations to a candidate are speech. Donations to candidates are already limited. The maximum donation on the federal level is $5,000 per election per candidate. Still is after the Citizens United decision. SPENDING money on speech is speech. That is the issue. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2016, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/54 "2016-04-11T22:56:48Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is not a partisan issue. 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. Most elected politicians aren’t. This is a rich/poor issue far more than a Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative issue. Lance Strongarm essentially said it already, but Citizens United doesn’t allow big money to give money to candidates. By definition, PACs and CU-related spending are not donations to the politician and not under the politician’s control. All CU does is say that you’re allowed to spend your own money on your own speech and that the government can’t stop you from doing that. Personally, I’d be offended at any other outcome from the courts. ---
**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:** [April 11, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/55 "2016-04-11T23:15:00Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is not a partisan issue. 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. And probably 79.9 percent don’t understand it. Reporters have done a terrible of job explaining it, mostly because they don’t understand it either. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/56 "2016-04-12T01:36:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Any claim of a negative affect based on “I don’t like who the voters are choosing” is laughable and completely undemocratic. Since the opinion of voters can be swayed by advertisements, what defines “democratic” any more? Elections can be bought. Isn’t that also completely undemocratic? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/57 "2016-04-12T03:35:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Since the opinion of voters can be swayed by advertisements, what defines “democratic” any more? Elections can be bought. Isn’t that also completely undemocratic? Interesting observation. Apologist means “a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people”. In this case, are the people “attacking poverty” the ones trying to fix it with .gov solutions? And the ones who oppose basic income / more welfare the “apologists” for “defending” poverty (ie defending the status quo)? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2016, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/58 "2016-04-12T03:47:28Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. Cite? I always thought of it as primarily a left vs right issue (the right defending free speech and the left wanting to quash it 😉 ) ---
**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 12, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/59 "2016-04-12T03:53:45Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Since the opinion of voters can be swayed by advertisements, what defines “democratic” any more? Elections can be bought. Isn’t that also completely undemocratic? Damn those voters! If only they voted how other people knew was better for them. What you call swaying by advertisers others may call effective persuasion to a superior position. Ultimately people have a vote. An undesirable outcome is not evidence of anti-democracy or an election being bought. ---
**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 12, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460/60 "2016-04-12T03:55:30Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Cite? > > I always thought of it as primarily a left vs right issue (the right defending free speech and the left wanting to quash it 😉 ) If you Google “citizens united poll” there are lots of cites. Doesn’t matter - 2 wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner and civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-monetary-political-contributions-the-same-as-speech/751460.md?page=4)