Site Meter

Money Talks Symposium: Money as a Means to More Speech

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. The problem is that, to be at all honest, you have to also recognize that regulating money spent on speech is just a means to the end of regulating speech itself. And regulating speech itself is an end the 1st amendment rules out, regardless of the means utilized.

  2. Logan Roise says:

    I think we need to not only look at whether money is speech or money is a means to speech but also who is spending the money and thus gaining greater access to said speech. For me personally, that is the greatest distinction. I believe that money is a means to speech (in that the more money a candidate has, the more they can spread their message).

    Now the question becomes how should we distribute access to speech. Should labor unions, special interest groups, and corporations be endowed with the same inalienable rights that I have as an individual? Absolutely not. As an individual I should be able to use as much of my own money to purchase as much speech as I can. However, an entity that is only as legal as we allow them to be on paper should not be afforded those same rights.

  3. “However, an entity that is only as legal as we allow them to be on paper should not be afforded those same rights.”

    How about if people are only exercising said rights through that entity because the government which wants to restrict it’s rights passed laws coercing them into doing so?

    People use corporations for purposes they’d never have thought to at the time the 1st amendment was adopted. Isn’t this because of a legal environment Congress itself had no small role in creating? To herd people into corporations, and then use the fact that they ARE in corporations to deny them their rights… That’s a bit dodgy.