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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ;).
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
)