• 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 believe the citizenry should be free to use their money, including collectively, to exercise free speech about politics in a manner where other citizens can hear it (ie electronic media).
 
If you think that corruption doesn't exist without a quid pro quo relationship, then you have no business in steering the political decisions of anything. And the most you have in your long rant is "grrr, librulz do it too!", which is meaningless to the overall topic. Spending money is an economic transaction, not speech. You don't need the government's permission to speak. But there are some restrictions on the time, place, and manner of your speech. This whole argument as relied on pro-corporate sycophants proclaiming that these two constitutionally supported maxims of law suddenly don't apply.

No, I was quite clear. You want the NY times but not citizens united. You can't pick and choose. Its all or none. The government is not permitted to pick and choose who can and who can't be in the press. My position isn't " liberals do it too" __ my position is that they (liberals) obviously should be able to do it, but that obviously its both or none, not some to the exclusion of others.
 
Last edited:
We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Ever publish a book? That requires a means of common exchange in order to secure goods and services ;).



Which is why, during the Citizens United hearing, the Government declared that it had the right to ban books.
 
It can be. In today's world, one needs to be famous and/or important to be heard in the mass media, which is most people's only source of information. Buying a sufficient number of advertisements or organizing a major demonstration, both of which require spending a significant amount of money, are the only other non-violent ways to be heard. Advertisements from organizations, such as labor unions, that have widespread grass roots support and are primarilly funded by modest donations from a large number of individuals, are an excellent example of democracy and free expression in action. The problem is that effective political advertising, especially advocacy for national issues, is primarilly available only to the rich, large corporations and the largest organizations.

The ACLU and I disagree with most liberals regarding Citizens United. I don't think that suppressing funding and spending for political speech is consistent with the first amendment or likely to be effective. It will not be effective because well funded political interests will always be able to find a way to get their message out. I also oppose government funding of political campaigns because it escalates the steady increase in campaign spending.

In my view the best way to even the political playing field between wealthy and non-wealthy interests is to provide free or affordable accesss to mass media to all interest groups, especially the less wealthy ones. The government can not, and should not, control the media. But the government does have the right and obligation to regulate broadcasters who profit handsomely from using a limited public resource (the airwaves). Broadcasters should be required to air political debates and candidate statements with all candidates on the ballot and guest editorials. Broadcasters should be required to air that content frequently and during a variety of times, including during prime time.

In addition, governments can stage public candidate debates with all candidates on the ballot that will attract mass media interest. They can expand voter information pamphlets to include more in-depth information from all sides regarding candidates and ballot measures, some of that cost can be offset with modest fees for additional space. The government can also buy space in the major non-broadcast media outlets for information/advocacy on candidates or issues from all sides. With imagination and a reasonable amount of funding, government can insure that all candidates and all sides of issues can be effectively presented to the public.
 
ACLU position on Citizens United

"....We firmly believe, however, that the response to those concerns must be consistent with our constitutional commitment to freedom of speech and association. For that reason, the ACLU does not support campaign finance regulation premised on the notion that the answer to money in politics is to ban political speech.

At the same time, we recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment...."
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

I disagree with the ACLU regarding public financing, but I strongly agree with the principal that "..the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy..."
 
If people have a forum in which to communicate their ideas and a choice of forums, then the loss of one of those forums (money) does not necessarily constitute a loss of speech. However if that lost forum was the only available one then yet it does

There's no real black and white

In today's situation, the forum that is unavailable to those without money, fame or power, advertising, is essentially the only effective forum for reaching an audience.
 
We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Money is used to buy things that are speech.Like bumper stickers, tv commercials, billboard ads, news paper ads and so on. By restricting money you are restricting a person's ability to buy those things. So when you restrict how much someone may spend on political candidates you are restricting that persons speech.
 
Money is used to buy things that are speech.Like bumper stickers, tv commercials, billboard ads, news paper ads and so on. By restricting money you are restricting a person's ability to buy those things. So when you restrict how much someone may spend on political candidates you are restricting that persons speech.

A better way of putting this question might be: "Should the government have the right to regulate our books, our magazines, our blogs, and our radio broadcasts?"
 
In today's situation, the forum that is unavailable to those without money, fame or power, advertising, is essentially the only effective forum for reaching an audience.

There is no way to enforce equality in the advertising of ideas. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with equality of expression. It has to do with government not being able to muzzle dissent, and having a responsibility to make sure people aren't muzzling each other.
 
In today's situation, the forum that is unavailable to those without money, fame or power, advertising, is essentially the only effective forum for reaching an audience.

Which is unfortunate as speech is fundamental to the citizenry and it makes those with fewer means less if a citizen
 
So is art.

All three are merely mediums for conveying an idea. It is interesting to note that the physical act of speaking and the printed word have language in common, while the third, art, does not. This means that language, also, is merely a medium, common as it is, for conveying an idea, and that idea does not necessarily need to be unambiguous, such as in art. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, although in most cases the transfer of money to another is not necessarily" speech," it can be.

Art is certainly speech. It is expression. The creation of art is an act of sheer expression. A portrait for commission might not qualify, but art is certainly speech. That includes music, dance, or a play. Or whatever you like. That's expressing. Buying something is not expressing.
 
Buying something is not expressing.

It depends what that "something" is.

If I commission an artist to create a sculpture that conveys a certain opinion, that transaction now falls under the umbrella of the First Amendment. It's a very short walk from there to financially supporting a politician whose views I agree with.
 
It depends what that "something" is.

If I commission an artist to create a sculpture that conveys a certain opinion, that transaction now falls under the umbrella of the First Amendment. It's a very short walk from there to financially supporting a politician whose views I agree with.

Creating the sculpture is speech (or rather, expression). Buying it isn't. Buying it is commerce. Commerce and speech are different things.
 
Creating the sculpture is speech (or rather, expression). Buying it isn't. Buying it is commerce. Commerce and speech are different things.

But you're trying to stop the person from buying the bronze to prevent the sculptor from making it with a clear censorial motive. When you say that money isn't speech and refer to Citizens United which spent money to make a movie, its clear what the substantive difference is, you want to make it such that they can't spend the money to make the movie. You're trying to make an end run and the bottom line is that they can make the movie and it costs money to make the movie.

All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.

Just like it protects your right to expend funds to purchase the devices and connections to this very forum.
 
It depends what that "something" is.

If I commission an artist to create a sculpture that conveys a certain opinion, that transaction now falls under the umbrella of the First Amendment. It's a very short walk from there to financially supporting a politician whose views I agree with.

Precisely because there are people who fund speech but aren't actually good at it, so they commission the project accordingly. They're trading whatever it is that they specialize in for something expressive and it is indeed protected.
 
Creating the sculpture is speech (or rather, expression). Buying it isn't. Buying it is commerce. Commerce and speech are different things.

[sigh]

You're playing a game of semantics because you know your argument is untenable. You once said that buying something is simply an economic transaction. Given that logic I could say that speaking is merely a neuro-muscular transaction. Both are accurate descriptions, yet both miss the point entirely.


I can tell that you're heels are dug in and you're not going to budge from your position. With that in mind, I bid you farewell.
 
[sigh]

You're playing a game of semantics because you know your argument is untenable. You once said that buying something is simply an economic transaction. Given that logic I could say that speaking is merely a neuro-muscular transaction. Both are accurate descriptions, yet both miss the point entirely.

I can tell that you're heels are dug in and you're not going to budge from your position. With that in mind, I bid you farewell.

No, I'm playing the game of actually knowing what the laws that govern speech are, and how they determine what is and is not speech. The Citizens United decision and previous ones (notably Buckley v Valeo) that equated the spending of money with speech are a direct contradiction of those laws. Our laws should not have competing definitions of what is or is not speech.

But you're trying to stop the person from buying the bronze to prevent the sculptor from making it with a clear censorial motive. When you say that money isn't speech and refer to Citizens United which spent money to make a movie, its clear what the substantive difference is, you want to make it such that they can't spend the money to make the movie. You're trying to make an end run and the bottom line is that they can make the movie and it costs money to make the movie.

All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech. Just like it protects your right to expend funds to purchase the devices and connections to this very forum.

You do understand that there is a very wide middle ground between "the first amendment doesn't protect that" and "it should be banned", right? And as I keep trying to explain, the first amendment doesn't protect the spending of money. Other things do, but economic transactions have their own rules. And their own elements of constitutional scrutiny. Buying a computer is not protected speech under the first amendment. That is literally an insane thing to say.
 
No, I'm playing the game of actually knowing what the laws that govern speech are, and how they determine what is and is not speech.

Well, nobody was arguing that the resulting movie from Citizens United wasn't speech, the argument is that it was an 'electioneering communication' which obviously took money to make and was therefore capable of being banned by the government. The Supreme Court rightly said, "You're allowed to make the movie"

The Citizens United decision and previous ones (notably Buckley v Valeo) that equated the spending of money with speech are a direct contradiction of those laws. Our laws should not have competing definitions of what is or is not speech.

No, they're not. They didn't make this up one day. There were previous attempt to do similar things and Citizens United is well founded on First National Bank v Belotti (except there instead of the FEC it was the State of Massachussets): "wanted to spend money to publicize their views opposing a referendum proposal to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to authorize the legislature to enact a graduated personal income tax." -- of course that action was contrary to a Massachussets state law (an amendment to the Mass Constitution no less), that prevented the EXPENDITURE itself. And that was found to violate the I Amendment.

You do understand that there is a very wide middle ground between "the first amendment doesn't protect that" and "it should be banned", right?

No, there isn't, either the government is constitutionally restricted from banning it or its up to the government's prerogative to ban it. In other words either your freedom of speech is a fundamental right or it is a statutory right. Its is obviously the former, and if it were the latter, then your right to speech is simply subject to congressional will. CAN'T be banned and CAN BAN BUT WON'T is a MAJOR difference in particular when we're discussing criticism of the government itself.

And as I keep trying to explain, the first amendment doesn't protect the spending of money.

Yes, it does, because when you attack the expenditure with a less than content neutral statute (electioneering communications) you are then expressing an unconstitutional censorial motive, it is unconstitutional and unquestionably so.

Buying a computer is not protected speech under the first amendment. That is literally an insane thing to say.

General vs differential treatment. Short and sweet, if the government imposes a 7% sales tax on everything, including the computer, you're fine, but if the government imposes a $3,000 tax on computer, specifically, with the intent to stifle the internet access of poor people, that would be 'differential treatment' violating the I Amendment.

That concept is illuminated in the Minnesota Star Tribune case, I can't look it up right now, bottom line the state imposed a DISTINCT tax that wasn't one of general applicability and the fact that they FOCUSED in on Minnesota's Star Tribune's use of newspaper and ink was enough to trigger scrutiny under the I Amendment.

What's even very illuminating in that case is that there wasn't any facial evidence of a censorial motive; whereas in the case of Citizens United, there is a specific censorial motive.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm playing the game of actually knowing what the laws that govern speech are, and how they determine what is and is not speech. The Citizens United decision and previous ones (notably Buckley v Valeo) that equated the spending of money with speech are a direct contradiction of those laws. Our laws should not have competing definitions of what is or is not speech.

When some unknown internet jockey implies that he knows the law better than the Justices on the United States Supreme Court, I'm a little skeptical. But hey, that's just me...
 
No, I'm playing the game of actually knowing what the laws that govern speech are, and how they determine what is and is not speech. The Citizens United decision and previous ones (notably Buckley v Valeo) that equated the spending of money with speech are a direct contradiction of those laws. Our laws should not have competing definitions of what is or is not speech.

You do understand that there is a very wide middle ground between "the first amendment doesn't protect that" and "it should be banned", right? And as I keep trying to explain, the first amendment doesn't protect the spending of money. Other things do, but economic transactions have their own rules. And their own elements of constitutional scrutiny. Buying a computer is not protected speech under the first amendment. That is literally an insane thing to say.

Even if spending money is not speech, what basis do you have for opposing the spending of one's own money?
 
Even if spending money is not speech, what basis do you have for opposing the spending of one's own money?

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.
 
We know what the USSC says. But do you believe spending money is speech?

Yes, I do. Financial contributions is a form of speech. Just as burning a flag, or wearing a sign with pictures but no words, or sitting in front of a door in protest is speech. None of those involve verbal or written words, but all are a form of speech. Free speech is any action that conveys your opinion or gives "voice" to your beliefs. Money can do that just like any of a hundred plus examples.

The question should be whether a corporation is a person, or does the First Amendment only apply to living breathing human beings?
 
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.

Such as giving people government subsidies or government grants or tax payer funded social programs? At what point does bribery become wrong? Only when the money is directed toward the government official? Or would it also be considered bribery, and wrong, when a government official gives money away, or grants citizenship to millions of people, in return for votes?

I'm not being flipped, I seriously want to know what you think. Is it bribery in both directions? Because they both fit the definition of bribery.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom