• 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
I agree that, especially nowadays with the internet, there should be easy and cheap ways for outspent candidates to nonetheless widely communicate to their voters what they're about. No one should be getting their candidate information from advertisements anyway. Campaign ads are by and large pure unadulterated garbage. Not the least bit convincing or intelligent. And if we as a people are too stupid to turn off the ****ing TV and investigate candidates directly and intentionally, then how is Congress going to save us from that?

Up here for example, I do not favor Mark Begich at all, his politics or his party, never have had any intention of voting for him, but it's clear there are some enormous, national-level pots of money fueling the incessant deluge of propaganda ads about him to take him down. Every single YouTube video you watch within Alaska's boundaries right now starts with a 15-20 second hit piece on Begich. Every single one. Not so much having anything to do with Begich, but just because his seat in Congress is valuable to some very powerful and rich people somewhere. Does that make me want to vote for Begich's main opponent? No. The obnoxious ads make me more skeptical of his opponent than if there were no such ads.

The ads should be completely ineffective at swaying public opinion. They certainly are for me. It's so easy to just get online and find non-biased or at least significantly less-biased analyses of candidates' positions, voting records, etc.

I don't think we can trust federal politicians to write laws that protect people from their own utter ignorance. It's up to them to not be ignorant. And if you're letting a TV ad convince you who gets your vote, you're ignorant, and your ignorance weakens the country -- no way around it. The answer to Citizens United and Congressional corruption is not to ask Congress to police how people are spending money to fund their own campaigns. The answer is for the American people to use the tools at the fingertips and do their own homework and stop being idiots. If we can't figure out how to stop being idiots, then we deserve all the corruption and bad leadership that's in store for us.

I agree about voter's responsibility to do their homework, but the fact is many people are lazy and/or busy. That is why I want to put the information in their faces by putting it on prime time TV. In some cases, getting info on cadidates beyond the brief voter pamphlet description is hard. I live in a small town near a larger city. Our major reagional newspapers give almost no coverage of our local races and we no longer have an accessible local paper, using the internet is required to be an informed voter.
 
I agree about voter's responsibility to do their homework, but the fact is many people are lazy and/or busy. That is why I want to put the information in their faces by putting it on prime time TV. In some cases, getting info on cadidates beyond the brief voter pamphlet description is hard. I live in a small town near a larger city. Our major reagional newspapers give almost no coverage of our local races and we no longer have an accessible local paper, using the internet is required to be an informed voter.

To the bold, exactly. People have to actively shun advertising, intentionally ignore or avoid it and do their own homework. I see no way to get good outcomes if people are brainless lazy passive recipients of TV ad propaganda, regardless of the Citizens United decision.
 
It is freedom of speech for the electorate to decide on election laws. If they want to limit the amount if money a candidate can receive from all individuals to limit powerful special interests from having an advantage and rob freedom from society as a whole, I have no problem with it.
 
NY Times clearly engages in 'more' speech than me in practically every conceivable measure of course.

The speech they practice is independent of the money that they spend.
 
It is freedom of speech for the electorate to decide on election laws. If they want to limit the amount if money a candidate can receive from all individuals to limit powerful special interests from having an advantage and rob freedom from society as a whole, I have no problem with it.
limiting someone else's speech =/= freedom of speech
 
limiting someone else's speech =/= freedom of speech

Society chooses to give power to government to curtail the freedom of commercial plants that pollute the air and water. It is common sense that the owner's freedom negatively effects everyone else's freedom to have clean air and water. If the few with massive money have negative effects on everyone else's freedom through corporate welfare, etc, society should have the right to create wise election laws that protect their freedoms.
 
uhh, what?

Money is not speech nor an extension of speech. Money is nothing more than a tool that people use to promote their speech.
 
Society chooses to give power to government to curtail the freedom of commercial plants that pollute the air and water. It is common sense that the owner's freedom negatively effects everyone else's freedom to have clean air and water. If the few with massive money have negative effects on everyone else's freedom through corporate welfare, etc, society should have the right to create wise election laws that protect their freedom.
What if those election laws violate 1A?
 
Money is not speech nor an extension of speech. Money is nothing more than a tool that people use to promote their speech.
If money is a tool that people use to promote their speech, then the speech they practice can't be independent of the money that they spend.
 
If money is a tool that people use to promote their speech, then the speech they practice can't be independent of the money that they spend.

Independent with regards to being speech. I am independent of my car but the car is a tool that I use to travel.
 
What if those election laws violate 1A?

It's just common sense. If freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, etc is taking away other's freedoms, then it is not viable protection. If my religion is to kill people, government has the right to take my freedom of religion away. If an article from the press is going to come out that is going to get a lot of people killed, freedom of press should be undermined in that instance. Maybe 99.9% of stuff is protected, but when it effects the rights of others, no. I could be missing your point though.
 
Last edited:
It's just common sense. If freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, etc is taking away other's freedoms, then it is not viable protection. If my religion is to kill people, government has the right to take my freedom of religion away. If an article from the press is going to come out that is going to get a lot of people killed, freedom of press should be undermined in that instance. Maybe 99.9% of stuff is protected, but when it effects the rights of others, no. I could be missing your point though.
That's why election laws are unconstitutional when they violate 1A.
 
I think the Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech, correct? I haven't studied their arguments and I may be missing something. I am certainly no Constitutional scholar.
 
The speech they practice is independent of the money that they spend.

No, it isn't. They spend the money to purchase all of the necessary inputs to publish, print, distribute, disseminate online and otherwise produce the speech that they actually produce. The speech wouldn't exist but for the expenditure and you damn well know it.
 
Sure.

$40 means 'May I have a lap dance please?'.
 
Where does the Commission state this?

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”
buckley
 
“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”
buckley

lol

No.

Freedom of Speech is seen as an inherent right. That means that even the poorest of the poor have it as a right.

Money gives you access to ways in which you can spread your opinions and views. It is not a form of expression in and of itself.

One main logical reason why not:

If tomorrow the dollar's value drops to 0 and suddenly we're worthless and can't even buy a drop of water to drink that doesn't mean we no longer have freedom of speech.

Also: what if tomorrow TV's suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth? And books? Those are just forms of communication.

What the above quote tells us is that some people value the concept of money *way too much*.
These people falsely believe that being rich = being worthy of more attention or respect. (Or your vote).

What if no one gave a listening ear to anyone using money to advertise? Suddenly advertising has no purpose. You must have an audience that is receptive and supportive in order for your advertisements to be fruitful.

And that is not what a 'freedoms' and 'rights' mean. Freedoms and rights are not something that can be shut out. Freedoms and rights cannot be devalued, stockpiled, and traded on the stock market, or bought.

[and another logical fallacy behind this concept: What if we went to a bartering system. Where tangible items or services were exchanged for other tangible items (pamphlets and books) and services (airtime on the radio). Would that, then, mean that every thing which carried any potential exchangeable value was a 'currency' which was a 'means of expression'. The entire thing is preposterous when you pick apart the further implications of it]
 
Last edited:
lol

No.

Freedom of Speech is seen as an inherent right. That means that even the poorest of the poor have it as a right.

Money gives you access to ways in which you can spread your opinions and views. It is not a form of expression in and of itself.

One main logical reason why not:

If tomorrow the dollar's value drops to 0 and suddenly we're worthless and can't even buy a drop of water to drink that doesn't mean we no longer have freedom of speech.

Also: what if tomorrow TV's suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth? And books? Those are just forms of communication.

What the above quote tells us is that some people value the concept of money *way too much*.
These people falsely believe that being rich = being worthy of more attention or respect. (Or your vote).

What if no one gave a listening ear to anyone using money to advertise? Suddenly advertising has no purpose. You must have an audience that is receptive and supportive in order for your advertisements to be fruitful.

And that is not what a 'freedoms' and 'rights' mean. Freedoms and rights are not something that can be shut out. Freedoms and rights cannot be devalued, stockpiled, and traded on the stock market, or bought.

Uhhh this is the USSC decision, not mine.. You asked where they decided this and I provided it...
 
Uhhh this is the USSC decision, not mine.. You asked where they decided this and I provided it...

I'm giving my opinion in response to their decision - not you :) I disagree with their assessment.
 
No, it isn't. They spend the money to purchase all of the necessary inputs to publish, print, distribute, disseminate online and otherwise produce the speech that they actually produce. The speech wouldn't exist but for the expenditure and you damn well know it.

Yes, I "damn well" know all that. That does not make money a form of speech though.
 
Yes, I "damn well" know all that. That does not make money a form of speech though.

"A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected. When the State imposes a generally applicable tax, there is little cause for concern. We need not fear that a government will destroy a selected group of taxpayers by burdensome taxation if it must impose the same burden on the rest of its constituency. See Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York,336 U. S. 106, 336 U. S. 112-113 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. See generally Stewart, "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings L.J. 631, 634 (1975). "[A]n untrammeled press [is] a vital source of public information," Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 297 U. S. 250, and an informed public is the essence of working democracy."

So, when people say, "Money isn't speech" they actually mean they didn't want Citizens United to spend the money to make the movie.

Somehow somebody is going to be stopped from spending money to speak.
 
"A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected. When the State imposes a generally applicable tax, there is little cause for concern. We need not fear that a government will destroy a selected group of taxpayers by burdensome taxation if it must impose the same burden on the rest of its constituency. See Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York,336 U. S. 106, 336 U. S. 112-113 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). When the State singles out the press, though, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from passing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. See generally Stewart, "Or of the Press," 26 Hastings L.J. 631, 634 (1975). "[A]n untrammeled press [is] a vital source of public information," Grosjean, 297 U.S. at 297 U. S. 250, and an informed public is the essence of working democracy."

So, when people say, "Money isn't speech" they actually mean they didn't want Citizens United to spend the money to make the movie.

Somehow somebody is going to be stopped from spending money to speak.

That still does not make money a form of speech...
 
Back
Top Bottom