How did money become free speech?

[independentusa]

I have never been able to equate money to free speech as this conservative court has done and tied it into corporations are people and concluded with Citizens United decision. I would think whether you are a traditionalist on the court or an originalist you could not make this decision stand up in your mind. It basically comes down to a political decision loosely based on the first Amendment and twisted in a way our forefathers would have wondered about. Certainly no such language exists in the constitution itself. I often hear conservatives talk about judges who make laws by their decisions, and this decision, Citizens United has to be right up there with Roe as far as twisting the Constitution to suit the outcome. And one of the members who made this decision said it would have little effect on our elections. Anyone out there believe in that statement. Since about 91% of all elections in this country are won by the person o party spending the most money, buying an election in this country has come down to the wealthy. I guess that is why we got the tax cut which goes mostly to thee top 10%. Payback for buying an election.

 

[cuban smokes]

I told many people many years ago you only have as much rights in this nation as you have money; they could not get it

take for example; if you are arrested for a crime & you have to stand trial you may qualify for a 'free' defense attorney, paid for by tax payer dollars but if that is what you get, then don't expect much of a defense.

conversely, if you are charged with a crime & you have to stand trial, and yo can pay for a really good defense lawyer, then you likely have much better odds of beating the rap & winning a 'not' guilty verdict

you only have as much rights as you have fund$

same goes for elections; elections are bought & paid for & SCOTUS has put that baby to rest .............. Yes America used to be a bit better but now we really suck .........

 

[Harshaw]

I have never been able to equate money to free speech as this conservative court has done and tied it into corporations are people and concluded with Citizens United decision. I would think whether you are a traditionalist on the court or an originalist you could not make this decision stand up in your mind. It basically comes down to a political decision loosely based on the first Amendment and twisted in a way our forefathers would have wondered about. Certainly no such language exists in the constitution itself. I often hear conservatives talk about judges who make laws by their decisions, and this decision, Citizens United has to be right up there with Roe as far as twisting the Constitution to suit the outcome. And one of the members who made this decision said it would have little effect on our elections. Anyone out there believe in that statement. Since about 91% of all elections in this country are won by the person o party spending the most money, buying an election in this country has come down to the wealthy. I guess that is why we got the tax cut which goes mostly to thee top 10%. Payback for buying an election.

As always, you can know the answers to these questions by reading the opinions in which they were decided.

 

[ecofarm]

I may not agree with CU, but I think the concept of voting with one's dollar should be obvious. Spending money is expression. I support markets with my words and my wallet.

Is not what I do with the money I earn an expression? I have freedom of expression, right?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In another thread I threw out a possible legal nightmare involving money-speech but no one responded to it.
I thought it was a very realistic possibility.
Would you like to give it a look?

 

[independentusa]

I may not agree with CU, but I think the concept of voting with one's dollar should be obvious. Spending money is expression. I support markets with my words and my wallet.

So it is okay that he who has the most money can buy an election? Basically that is what you re saying. And voting with ones money is one thing, but saying money is speech so you can insure that those who have the most money can control what used to be our democracy is another.

 

[ludin]

In another thread I threw out a possible legal nightmare involving money-speech but no one responded to it.
I thought it was a very realistic possibility.
Would you like to give it a look?

Depending on what it is.

like anything unless it breaks another law there should be no issue.
Citizens was a boon for unions as well.

 

[ecofarm]

So it is okay that he who has the most money can buy an election? Basically that is what you re saying. And voting with ones money is one thing, but saying money is speech so you can insure that those who have the most money can control what used to be our democracy is another.

You're presenting a strawman. Elections aren't actually purchased. The more established person has more campaign money and they win. Not because of the money, but the establishment. You're putting the cart before the horse.

That aside, you're ignoring the other side of the coin. Sure we need to consider the influence of money on an election, as free people. But we need to remember spending is expression and we have freedom of expression.

 

[ludin]

So it is okay that he who has the most money can buy an election? Basically that is what you re saying. And voting with ones money is one thing, but saying money is speech so you can insure that those who have the most money can control what used to be our democracy is another.

since no one is saying that you would be incorrect.
If unions (who are not people) by the way can donate to a campaign then so can a corporation (who are technically not people).
see how equal protection works?

 

[Zyphlin]

Money, in and of itself, is not speech. The USE of ones money, however, can be considered speech.

If I spend money to purchase a sign to put in my front yard, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to buy a bumper sticker for my card, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to create a website, I am using my money to engage in "speech"

If I spend money to pay writers to create content for that website, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to purchase ad time to air a commercial, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If you pass a law saying I'm not allowed to spend money to do those things (and thus making those forms of speech impossible to perform in the fashion I desire) then you are restricting my ability to engage in speech and you have a very high burden, as the government, to justify doing such a thing constitutionally.

This concept is not a hard one for anyone to understand honestly. It's actually a well ingrained notion that is uttered by people from both sides when you use the logic of "vote with your wallet". I.E. when people were encouraging folks to not buy chick-fil-a food to send a message about their support for groups against gay marriage. Or when people were going to a place like the Redhen to show their support for their actions with regards to Trump's press secretary. In both instances, they were suggesting people use their money (either giving it, or withholding it) in an effort to make a political message...i.e. speech. "Vote with your wallet" or "sending a message with your wallet" is a concept that both sides willingly engage in routinely and should make it easy to understand.

 

[ecofarm]

Money, in and of itself, is not speech. The USE of ones money, however, can be considered speech.

If I spend money to purchase a sign to put in my front yard, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to buy a bumper sticker for my card, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to create a website, I am using my money to engage in "speech"

If I spend money to pay writers to create content for that website, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to purchase ad time to air a commercial, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If you pass a law saying I'm not allowed to spend money to do those things (and thus making those forms of speech impossible to perform in the fashion I desire) then you are restricting my ability to engage in speech and you have a very high burden, as the government, to justify doing such a thing constitutionally.

When I spend money on organic food, I'm using my money to engage in speech.

 

[Common Sense 1]

I have never been able to equate money to free speech as this conservative court has done and tied it into corporations are people and concluded with Citizens United decision. I would think whether you are a traditionalist on the court or an originalist you could not make this decision stand up in your mind. It basically comes down to a political decision loosely based on the first Amendment and twisted in a way our forefathers would have wondered about. Certainly no such language exists in the constitution itself. I often hear conservatives talk about judges who make laws by their decisions, and this decision, Citizens United has to be right up there with Roe as far as twisting the Constitution to suit the outcome. And one of the members who made this decision said it would have little effect on our elections. Anyone out there believe in that statement. Since about 91% of all elections in this country are won by the person o party spending the most money, buying an election in this country has come down to the wealthy. I guess that is why we got the tax cut which goes mostly to thee top 10%. Payback for buying an election.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
08-205 Dist. Ct. for D.C. Sep 9, 2009
Tr.Aud. Jan 21, 2010 5-4 Kennedy OT 2008

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - SCOTUSblog




https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[Mr Person]

I have never been able to equate money to free speech as this conservative court has done and tied it into corporations are people and concluded with Citizens United decision. I would think whether you are a traditionalist on the court or an originalist you could not make this decision stand up in your mind. It basically comes down to a political decision loosely based on the first Amendment and twisted in a way our forefathers would have wondered about. Certainly no such language exists in the constitution itself. I often hear conservatives talk about judges who make laws by their decisions, and this decision, Citizens United has to be right up there with Roe as far as twisting the Constitution to suit the outcome. And one of the members who made this decision said it would have little effect on our elections. Anyone out there believe in that statement. Since about 91% of all elections in this country are won by the person o party spending the most money, buying an election in this country has come down to the wealthy. I guess that is why we got the tax cut which goes mostly to thee top 10%. Payback for buying an election.

To put it simply, originalism is pure bull**** which, if it was not pure bull****, would be utterly unworkable in practice. Naturally, the constitution says nothing about whether money is speech, nor does it even define it. So a pure originalist would be stuck. Guess we can't make a decision.

But that's not what they do. Instead, they pick the primary sources from the era, then use argument and analogy to try to apply something the founders did actually have an original intent about to a new question the founders could not possibly have had an intent about.

I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do. That's what they should do. And, in effect, it's what any judge engaging in constitutional decisionmaking does. It's just that various judges disagree on which primary sources have the most importance, which analogies work best, and so forth, when trying to apply an ancient intent to a question that was inconceivable at the time that intent was had.

This is something the founders intended, since all but two framers agreed that english common law decisionmaking should apply to constitutional interpretion, and english common law decision making naturally allowed for law to evolve as best it could.

(Of course, there's also no one true "original intent" for anything. Each framer had his own specific set of desires and beliefs. Yet another way in whic originalism is BS).




The main difference between so-called originalist judges and the wide array of other types is that the orignalists are the only ones self-absorbed and arrogant enough to pretend that they are the only people respecting the constitution.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Money, in and of itself, is not speech. The USE of ones money, however, can be considered speech.

If I spend money to purchase a sign to put in my front yard, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to buy a bumper sticker for my card, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to create a website, I am using my money to engage in "speech"

If I spend money to pay writers to create content for that website, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If I spend money to purchase ad time to air a commercial, I am using my money to engage in "speech".

If you pass a law saying I'm not allowed to spend money to do those things (and thus making those forms of speech impossible to perform in the fashion I desire) then you are restricting my ability to engage in speech and you have a very high burden, as the government, to justify doing such a thing constitutionally.

This concept is not a hard one for anyone to understand honestly. It's actually a well ingrained notion that is uttered by people from both sides when you use the logic of "vote with your wallet". I.E. when people were encouraging folks to not buy chick-fil-a food to send a message about their support for groups against gay marriage. Or when people were going to a place like the Redhen to show their support for their actions with regards to Trump's press secretary. In both instances, they were suggesting people use their money (either giving it, or withholding it) in an effort to make a political message...i.e. speech. "Vote with your wallet" or "sending a message with your wallet" is a concept that both sides willingly engage in routinely and should make it easy to understand.

All true but you are a mortal flesh and blood human being, not a potentially immortal corporate "person" imbued with unlimited money and none of the civic responsibilities borne by mortal persons. We can't pretend that Charles or David Koch throwing a billion dollars of their own money is illegal, but the moment you make it okay for their corporation to pretend that it too, is A PERSON (singular, not "people") and green light Koch Industries harnessing their billions, you create an entirely new species of "person" and there are some mighty scary unintended consequences that may arise.

 

[Mr Person]

So it is okay that he who has the most money can buy an election? Basically that is what you re saying. And voting with ones money is one thing, but saying money is speech so you can insure that those who have the most money can control what used to be our democracy is another.

That's simply not the question they were answering. They would have no place saying "we don't like the outcome that might happen if we say that money is enough like speech to enjoy protection from the 1st, therefore, we'll say it isn't protected."

 

[Geoist]

As always, you can know the answers to these questions by reading the opinions in which they were decided.

And as always you can witness the effect of that decision. Our country is now more divided than ever, both politically and financially.

 

[Harshaw]

And as always you can witness the effect of that decision. Our country is now more divided than ever, both politically and financially.

Even if you could attribute that to the decision, it's entirely irrelevant as to the question of how it was decided.

 

[Geoist]

When I spend money on organic food, I'm using my money to engage in speech.

That is a pretty broad definition of speech. Are you buying tomatoes to be thrown at a politician?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
08-205 Dist. Ct. for D.C. Sep 9, 2009
Tr.Aud. Jan 21, 2010 5-4 Kennedy OT 2008

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - SCOTUSblog




https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes.
2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2)

Public sector unions however, are now prohibited from demanding dues, creating an unequal playing field which, it is argued, will soon spread to all unions.

 

[ecofarm]

That is a pretty broad definition of speech. Are you buying tomatoes to be thrown at a politician?

I'm trying to change the system. Freedom of expression is the root of freedom of speech.

 

[Geoist]

Even if you could attribute that to the decision, it's entirely irrelevant as to the question of how it was decided.

But how a decision could potentially impact society can sway a justice and certainly has in the past. We shouldn't be asking whether "money is speech." That is just an arguing semantics. We should be asking, "how does money impact the political process and is it detrimental enough to be regulated?"

 

[Harshaw]

But how a decision could potentially impact society can sway a justice and certainly has in the past.

What can happen doesn't have a thing to do with what did happen.

We should be asking, "how does money impact the political process and is it detrimental enough to be regulated?"

That is not the question that was asked, and not the question I was speaking to.

 

[Surrealistik]

You're presenting a strawman. Elections aren't actually purchased. The more established person has more campaign money and they win. Not because of the money, but the establishment. You're putting the cart before the horse.

That aside, you're ignoring the other side of the coin. Sure we need to consider the influence of money on an election, as free people. But we need to remember spending is expression and we have freedom of expression.

Money is not an absolute determinant, but it is a significant factor and force multiplier in determining an election's victor, particularly in close races (hence why both political parties invest fundraising with such fundamental importance, and most federal politicos spend most of their time doing it).

Beyond that, there is also the ingratiating element of money where a politician both feels obliged to reward a donor for his direct or indirect contributions, and becomes fearful of losing its electoral funding, granting it favourable tax treatment, legislation, etc... as a direct result.


The studies speak for themselves: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The preferences of the rich, when their agendas are put into conflict with just about anyone else, and in particular the typical person, largely win out; the US, at least federally, is a plutocratic oligarchy in all but name.


I think it is clear by now (though it should have always been apparent) that the democratically corrosive elements of money in politics greatly outweight, in the ratio of vice to virtue, any dubious claim to protected speech they have. Private money in public office underlies and festers at the very root of most of the country's substantive political ills.

 

[ecofarm]

Money is not an absolute determinant, but it is a significant factor in determining an election's victor (hence why both political parties invest fundraising with such fundamental importance, and most federal politicos spend most of their time doing it).

Beyond that, there is also the ingratiating element of money where a politician both feels obliged to reward a donor for his direct or indirect contributions, and fearful of losing its electoral funding with favourable tax treatment, legislation, etc...


The studies speak for themselves: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The preferences of the rich, when their agendas are put into conflict with just about anyone else, and in particular the typical person, largely win out; the US, at least federally, is a plutocratic oligarchy in all but name.


I think it is clear by now that the democratically corrosive elements of money in politics greatly outweight, in the ratio of vice to virtue, any dubious claim to protected speech they have.

Correlation =/= causation. Cart before horse.


I'm not denying influence. I'm denying elections are bought.

 

[independentusa]

since no one is saying that you would be incorrect.
If unions (who are not people) by the way can donate to a campaign then so can a corporation (who are technically not people).
see how equal protection works?

Unions are basically not much here anymore so that is one thing. The other is the the little people, as the ealthy would say, control the union, while corporations are controlled by the board. Those boards are made up of who else, the wealthy. Don't see many laborers on corporation boards do we? In today's world you are comparing apples and to gold watches in comparing unions to corporations.