I’d put that as a buyer beware sort of thing. If he didn’t ask before you died, then that’s his problem. He already took your business, so now he’s obligated to follow through.
If, on the other hand, your lawyer found out while you were living and declined to continue offering his services to you on that basis, I’d have no real issue with it.
We have a representational democracy. Spending money on the campaign of a politician (which is what I presume you are talking about…if not, sorry, my bad) is ‘free speech’ because, presumably, said politician will speak for you, i.e. they will represent your views in our system. In theory anyway. Personally, I think paying money to a political campaign is a bad bargain, but that’s probably why I’m not a billionaire…
I feel that James Madison wanted free speech so ideas could be heard, not sold.
Everyone has a single voice. But some people have a lot more money than other people. When you equate money with speech, you’re eliminating a fundamental equality. Rich people can now speak more than poor people. And government officials, who now have the constitutional right to take money from people, will listen more to rich people than they will to poor people.
I can understand why rich people like this system. But it mystifies me why there are so many people who aren’t rich who like it. If you’re going to put the interests of a small group ahead of the common interest, why do so for a group you’re not a member of?
a) Unions spend equally on politics as big business.
b) The wealthy don’t create money from the ether. They get it from you. Don’t give it to them.
c) Wealthy person buys newspaper. 1st Amendment rights. Boom, whatchagonnado?
Pull the other one.
In 2016, the top five individual donors by themselves donated more than the combined donations that all unions donated. If you add up all the money donated by wealthy individuals it comes to over six times that total donated by all unions.
And unions aren’t donating as individuals; a union, by definition, represents thousands or even millions of individuals. So when the 1,900,000 members of the Service Employees International Union (the top donating union) donate $19,000,000 and Tom Steyer donates $66,000,000, that six-million-to-one per capita ratio does not represent equality. (And my objection isn’t just partisan. Steyer actually donates money to the Democrats.)
I don’t object to people being wealthy. I object to wealth determining political power.
Fine. Let rich people do that. I’m pretty sure political officials are not going to find a newspaper article as persuasive as a million dollar check.
If you publish your views in a newspaper and convince a politician to vote the way you think, that’s fine; that’s freedom of speech. But if you offer a politician a million dollars to vote the way you think, that should be wrong; it’s just legalized bribery.
One particularly crass example was the recent tax bill. Unpopular, but republican senators were very clear: their donors would abandon them if they didn’t pass it. This ceased being an issue of “free speech” long ago; in a country with even remotely adequate anti-corruption laws, this would be grounds for at least Chris Collins to be stripped of his office immediately, and for almost every person who voted for that tax bill to face a serious corruption investigation. But at this point, you basically can’t get in trouble for political bribery unless you pretty much admit it outright.
There is definitely a difference between speech and an exchange of value. Speech is given free, and one is free to do what they want with it. Bribery carries with it the requirement to perform an action.
Where you get into a weird line is where you pay, but don’t require them to listen. The problem there is human nature and the implied contract. Even if you don’t actually attach any strings, there is an implied quid pro quo. There is the implication that, if you don’t do what we say, we’ll stop giving you money. That has more power.
And that is the problem. In speech, all voices have the same amount of power, allowing for rule by a majority of the people. With bribery and quid pro quo, he with the most money wins. That is why there is an impetus for representative democracies to take money out of the politics.
Capitalism has its uses, but using it as a way to govern is not good, because it creates a divide of an upper class and a lower class. And, eventually, the lower class will revolt if they think they aren’t in control of their own lives.
This is, in fact, my summary of democracy in a nutshell. It is why it is the best system–because it is the system that works that produces the most freedom for its participants. And having money give you more power in government fucks up that freedom.
In essence the argument is of what value is the free speech of the man standing on the soapbox when he can be drowned out by the man with the soundtruck?