• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

Do You Personally Believe Spending Money is Speech?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 38 54.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • Total voters
    70
Does time = speech? What if the government passed a law saying that we can only talk about politics for 3 minutes/day?
 
Speech is an expression of ideas. People can express ideas with their own vocal chords, or they can do so using their vocal chords through a loud speaker, or they can write their ideas, and they can pay to print the written expression of ideas in various places, or they can express the ideas in any of a wide variety and combination of ways.

Some of the ways in which a person can express his/her ideas cost money to be able to express them the way they want. There is not a legitimate reason to infringe upon their ability to express ideas, nor any legitimate way to say they can't spend their own money expressing their ideas.

If our people in general are so utterly brainless that they believe whatever propaganda they see on a TV commercial, then we're screwed in any case, and not because people are allowed to express ideas, but because people who hear those ideas are so stupid that they don't think critically about them.

We need a populace that thinks critically and investigates the truthfulness of dubious claims they hear from people with an agenda. We don't need to protect the populace from ideas based on the assumption that they can't think critically about them. That would just mean that someone is appointed censor over the society, which is just as bad and for all the same reasons.

No, no one is infringing on their ability to Express ideas, they are infringing on the ability to purchase politicians ....

Money is a medium of Exchange, not speach, it can be USED to Exchange for something which can enhance speach, but it itself isn't speach.

If purchasing something means speach, and no one should be able to tell me what I can and cannot purchase, for example, a politician, there are plenty of Things that follow, i.e. you can't stop prostitution, you can't stop human trafficing of children, and so on.

No Money isn't speach, and anyone that thinks about it for 2 Seconds would realize that.
 
Does time = speech? What if the government passed a law saying that we can only talk about politics for 3 minutes/day?

No because the government cannot infringe on freedom of speach.

Nor can they dictate what you do With Your time.

THey CAN however, regulate Commerce.
 
It's not even a close call. Donating to political campaigns is just another form of political expression. And political speech is as fundamental a right as Americans have. That's reason enough for leftists to loathe it--most of them, being the very opposite of true liberals, disdain the First and Second Amendments.

I'd bet not one in a thousand of the leftist dim bulbs who are forever shrieking about the evils of Citizens United has ever even turned a page of the decision. Maybe they're all too aware they couldn't understand it anyway. Mother Jones, Michael Moore films, and the throwaway "urban" paper on the rack by the bong shop door are much more their speed.

Do you find anything wrong With corruption?
 
NY Times clearly engages in 'more' speech than me in practically every conceivable measure of course.

NYT is a special constitutional entity...called the press.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

see, it is right there...
 
No because the government cannot infringe on freedom of speach.

Nor can they dictate what you do With Your time.

THey CAN however, regulate Commerce.

So the government can restrict how much newspaper/printer ink and how much printing paper you can buy?
 
So the government can restrict how much newspaper/printer ink and how much printing paper you can buy?

Well ... Anti-Trust laws would apply in Extreme cases ...
 
Because preventing bribery is a pretty important thing to do. Especially bribery of elected officials. And this whole debate rests on pretending that some forms of bribery aren't real.

And to prevent speech by regulating independent expenditures is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
 
Do you find anything wrong With corruption?

If you want to prevent corruption, prevent corruption, but a private entity spending money on a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton (at the time a seated Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination), or in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11 lambasting George Bush (obviously then the sitting incumbent President running for re-election) is actually the I Amendment's highest form, there's nothing presumptively corrupt about either activity unless the government itself can PROVE the quid pro quo.
 
THey CAN however, regulate Commerce.

Yes, they can. They can regulate commerce on a 'rational basis' but when that regulation of commerce is such that it has a differential impact on speech, then they don't get to, they don't get to make an end run around the I Amendment by 'rationally regulating' commerce and when the differential treatment is shown, the censorial motive exists and the action will violate the I Amendment.
 
If you want to prevent corruption, prevent corruption, but a private entity spending money on a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton (at the time a seated Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination), or in the case of Fahrenheit 9/11 lambasting George Bush (obviously then the sitting incumbent President running for re-election) is actually the I Amendment's highest form, there's nothing presumptively corrupt about either activity unless the government itself can PROVE the quid pro quo.

If I go up to a politician, and say I'll give you a billion dollars if you vote such and such way ....

how, under Your philosophy that Money is speach, would you say that is wrong?
 
no one is infringing on their ability to Express ideas

If money isn't speech and you're not going to stop Citizens United from spending the money to make the movie that was the whole point of the case, then nobody cares, its just a semantic drivel, but if money isn't speech then I'd suggest your motive is to prevent somebody from spending money, in this case, to prevent them from making the very movie that you claim doesn't infringe on their ability to express ideas, in this case the idea, in Citizen United's opinion, that Hillary Clinton sucks.

No, no one is infringing on their ability to Express ideas, they are infringing on the ability to purchase politicians ....

Well, Citizens United was an actual entity, spending actual money to make a movie that criticized a member of the government, who were they buying?

I don't need the government's permission to criticize them.
 
No. It commodifies speech. Which then obviously means it is no longer free.
 
No. It commodifies speech. Which then obviously means it is no longer free.

'free' doesn't mean without cost to you, it means free from government restraint. You're conflating the two different senses of the word.
 
1. If money isn't speech and you're not going to stop Citizens United from spending the money to make the movie that was the whole point of the case, then nobody cares, its just a semantic drivel, but if money isn't speech then I'd suggest your motive is to prevent somebody from spending money, in this case, to prevent them from making the very movie that you claim doesn't infringe on their ability to express ideas, in this case the idea, in Citizen United's opinion, that Hillary Clinton sucks.

Well, Citizens United was an actual entity, spending actual money to make a movie that criticized a member of the government, who were they buying?

I don't need the government's permission to criticize them.

1. I'm not preventing anyone from spending Money, here's the question, the specific Court case isn't what I'm talking about here, its' the principle of Money=speach .... it clearly isn't, Money is a medium of Exchange.

But the Logic if claiming Money is speach would mean that you CANNOT oppose corruption, or any spending, since all if it would be speach, or any use of Money, what essencially you're left With is plutocracy (which is basically what rightwingers wanted all along)
 
If I go up to a politician, and say I'll give you a billion dollars if you vote such and such way ....

how, under Your philosophy that Money is speach, would you say that is wrong?

Money can be speech, that's the point on top of which there is an important distinction between direct contributions which the government can absolutely regulate and independent expenditures which they really can't. 18 USC 201 remains in force and will not be found to violate the I Amendment. Even if you were to make the claim that it violated the I Amendment, you'd still have a compelling interest that was narrowly tailored, notwithstanding when the term money isn't speech is bantered about, its not about giving it to politicians, its about trying to get entities, like Citizens United NOT to spend money on activities that enable them to engage in speech; the attempt to do so WILL absolutely trigger, and rightly so, I Amendment scrutiny.
 
Money is effectively a replacement for town square and soapbox to stand on. Without it you cannot meaningfully express your ideas to a significant number of people. So yes restraining the ability to spend restrains free speech.

On the other hand given the Internet that may well become a moot point in the future.
 
1. I'm not preventing anyone from spending Money, here's the question, the specific Court case isn't what I'm talking about here, its' the principle of Money=speach .... it clearly isn't, Money is a medium of Exchange.

Money isn't speech is just a mantra, its not a legally significant phrase, but its a mantra that actually does stand for a proposition which, in conjunction with a specific case, Citizens United, would've prevented an expenditure of money on the movie they made and when the government does that, that expenditure actually IS speech and will trigger I Amendment scrutiny.

But the Logic if claiming Money is speach would mean that you CANNOT oppose corruption, or any spending, since all if it would be speach, or any use of Money, what essencially you're left With is plutocracy (which is basically what rightwingers wanted all along)

Money is speech is simply the reverse of the mantra. Taking both statements as statements of doctrine leads to absolutist absurdities like your post suggests.
 
Money can be speech, that's the point on top of which there is an important distinction between direct contributions which the government can absolutely regulate and independent expenditures which they really can't. 18 USC 201 remains in force and will not be found to violate the I Amendment. Even if you were to make the claim that it violated the I Amendment, you'd still have a compelling interest that was narrowly tailored, notwithstanding when the term money isn't speech is bantered about, its not about giving it to politicians, its about trying to get entities, like Citizens United NOT to spend money on activities that enable them to engage in speech; the attempt to do so WILL absolutely trigger, and rightly so, I Amendment scrutiny.

If Money IS speach .... i.e. you can GIVE Money all you want or use Your Money in any way you want.

We arn't talking about Money being an Enhancement to speach or something like that, we are saying Money = Speach.

what is the argument against Direct contributions?

I mean can the government regulate me talking to my representative? As opposed to just talking on a soap Box? No, if Money is speach then how can they regulate giving Money to politicians?

Money is speech is simply the reverse of the mantra. Taking both statements as statements of doctrine leads to absolutist absurdities like your post suggests.

So do you think Money is speach?
 
A post written on a computer or other internet connected device that you spent money on. NY Times spends hundreds of millions putting out its material.

Persuasion is a science. And critical thinking doesn't override many of its techniques.

Until this society realizes this, money isn't buying speech. Its buying manipulation.
 
So do you think Money is speach?

When its used to enable speech, yes, and the government's attempt to make an end run around the I Amendment, ie. when they exhibit a censorial motive, rightfully triggers I Amendment scrutiny.
 
When its used to enable speech, yes, and the government's attempt to make an end run around the I Amendment, ie. when they exhibit a censorial motive, rightfully triggers I Amendment scrutiny.

Ok, SO, at what point is spending Money something that can enable Speech and at what time is it not?

So for example, I buy a microphone in order to give a speach, the purchase of a microphone isn't speach, but it is used for speach.

If it's the purchase itself that is speach, then how can you argue that it's wrong to just give Money to a politician and say "I want you to vote this way" ... if the use of Money is speach then how can you argue against that?
 
If all we had was money being spent the NY Times and Media Matters this wouldn't even be an issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom