SCOTT:
“2. money is speech (and therefore protected).”

I think there are lots of precedents both for and against this, right? Isn’t capping campaign spending roughly akin to fixing a price for a good or commodity? It seems like the government has both done that and banned doing that quite a bit in the last century or so.

There are some obvious cases, though, where the right to donate money to an organization has been restricted for the same reasons it might be legally justifiable to restrict speech–for example, if the recipient in question is guilty of terrorism or hate crimes…. See More

If you restrict campaign spending, though, corporations could still find lots of ways to channel wealth or resources to politicians/parties.

I think that first bit:
“1. corporations have first amendment rights”
is by far the more threatening of those two prospects, and the greater threat to democracy.

LAURA:
i know what you mean about not wanting to bring things up because you’re not sure if you know enough about it. i think it’s good anyway, though! maybe it will start a conversation that a lot of people can learn from! i personally learn from (and enjoy!) your blog. thank you for writing! :)

ME:
scott, i don’t think “they’d find a way to give ‘em money anyway” is a good reason not to restrict campaign spending, imho. the 1st assumption (corporations have free speech rights) has actually been established for quite awhile; it’s the 2nd, and the resulting declaration of campaign spending limits as unconstitutional, that’s new. or at least, … See Morethis clarification of it is new. obviously the idea that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens is really awful and threatening, but what concerns me about this new legal decision especially is that if money is speech, corporations have, like, MORE free speech rights than ordinary citizens, because they will always have the bigger, more powerful, more expensive platform to speak from. but, yeah, i don’t think we disagree.

laura, thanks for your kind feedback :)

ARI:
nah, as far as i know, the “money is speech” thing is pretty well-rooted in the mainstream of constitutional law. even the 4 justices who dissented in citizens united still acknowledged that the 1st amendment applied to corporate spending; their dissent just said that the state had a compelling interest in overruling the 1st amendment right in this… See More case. i actually think the “money is not speech” people have a decent argument, but it’s a pretty radical position to take compared with anyone on the court.

the kicker is, if everyone has an equal right to free speech, and this right is equivalent to money…have citizens united now given us a new rationale for the socialist workers’ utopia?

ME:
i’m down for the socialist utopia :)