"If money is speech, then speech isn't free."

[riqster]

Saw the sign during a Citizens United demo. Not perfect English usage, but the sentiment is magnificent.

On edit: link to pic:
https://m.facebook.com/OurTimeOrg/photos/a.196549437047190.41358.160389977329803/740096392692489/?type=1&source=48&ref=bookmark

[grahamhgreen]

1. Perfect framing/slogan. Kick for exposure.

[riqster]

3. Thanks. Trying to find a pic. Drat this mobile device, anyway.

[grahamhgreen]

4. Do you know how to post a pic?

I upload to imgur, then post the .jpg link....

[riqster]

8. Never learned that. At home on a PC, it's easy.

On this thing, it's a pain. I'll put one up tonight.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Here ya go! Just post this in your OP: http://i.imgur.com/b68cvrl.jpg

[riqster]

28. Thanks!

[calimary]

51. Fits on a bumper sticker, too.

So that will reach some of the low-information voters out there, and those unable to wrap their "brains" around anything but the simplest and most briefly-worded concepts.

[IMG][/IMG]

[riqster]

52. Good one!

[badtoworse]

2. That's a true statement - it costs money to get your message out.

[riqster]

29. Which is why it's an Animal Farm analogue:

Just as "Some are more equal than others", in this case "Some have more free speech than others".

[badtoworse]

58. Nothing in the 1st Amendment limits the number of people that hear what you have to say.

If you can afford a full page ad in the NY Times, what gives the government the power to prevent you from doing that?

[riqster]

60. Define " you".

[badtoworse]

61. a person or an organization authorised by its members or owners to speak on their behalf.

[riqster]

71. Now, there is an interesting matter. Shareholders often do not thus empower executives.

In fact, there are lawsuits in progress over just that issue. Not "authorized" to spend shareholders' funds and buy elections without deliberation and a vote.

Corporations are not people.

[badtoworse]

76. That is not a 1st Amendment matter - it's a very different legal question

The actions which executives and boards are authorized to take and what they are prohibited from doing would be spelled out in the corporate documents - bylaws, shareholders' agreements, articles of incorporation, etc. It seems logical to me (but I'm not a lawyer) that you agree to these authorizations and prohibitions when you buy your shares. I would expect that, in most cases, these would be drawn broadly enough that the board could authorize the executives to participate in political matters for the benefit of the corporation. I wouldn't be surprised if participation in the political process were specifically authorized in many cases - the importance of a favorable tax and regulatory environment to businesses is obvious. Bottom line is that I believe shareholders will have a tough time convincing a court that the board can't authorize political participation absent an explicit prohibion in the corporate documents.

Shareholders do have the power to change what the board can and cannot do. They could petition to put the question to a vote of the shareholders or they could elect a new board. As a practical matter, neither is easy. I frequently see shareholder petitions on matters such as animal cruelty, executive compensation and other things on proxy statements. I think most shareholders follow the board's recommendation on those and they usually fail. I don't see any reason why a sharefolder vote on participation in the political process would be a special case. Shareholders are looking to see a return on their investment and most are intelligent enough to realize that forgoing participation in the political process is a bad move.

Corporations are not people, but neither are PAC's or labor unions. Would you similarly restrict political participation by those groups?

[Bandit]

62. So there should be no regulations what so ever?

Whoever has the most money wins it all I guess. Is that what you think makes America great?

[badtoworse]

63. Constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restriction.

I doubt that any court would agree that limiting the number people you can speak to is reasonable. I'm OK with that.

[2banon]

64. The Point is that Speech is limited to those with the ability to BUY it.

I don't know how much full page ads in the NYT cost these days, but back in 1999/2000 I recall our activist group of having to shell out $10 G's for an ad in the NYT. I can't recall if it was a full page or half page now. But we had to hold several fundraisers to raise the dough, for a single edition at that.

[X_Digger]

74. NYT should provide that space, free for anyone who wants it, right?

Oh, that wasn't what you were saying?

Free clue: exposure != speech. Publicity != speech.

The government is under no obligation to provide the means for you to express your speech. No, it's just obligated to not interfere with your speech, or as little as possible (time/place/manner restrictions).

That's how our rights work. The bill of rights is not a 'the people can' document, it's a 'the government shall not' document.

[2banon]

84. BIG FAIL

[X_Digger]

107. My how eloquent. Care to expand your treatise?

Start with the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

http://billofrights.org/

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

[hifiguy]

5. That needs to be a viral meme. NOW!

[riqster]

10. Just posted a link to a pic, somebody else made the same sign.

[bhikkhu]

6. And the top 20% in this country get an 85% say in how things should be

While the rest have little to say at all, and plenty have nothing. Doesn't sound like democracy.

[riqster]

11. It's Animal Farm realized.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Not a great analogy.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that all Americans are equal.

[riqster]

26. We're all created equal. I'm pretty sure somebody wrote that down somewheres.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended, that's a nice observation.

Thanks for the thread, rigster.

[riqster]

13. Thanks for the K&R, unc!

[napkinz]

9. ...

[riqster]

12. Bright man. Thanks.

[napkinz]

16. a few more ..

[hifiguy]

19. Thanks for these!!

[lame54]

14. Money is a lot of things...

it's a gas

it's a hit

it's a crime

Is the root of all evil today

But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away

therefore it's not free

[riqster]

22. I'm all right Jack.

[unblock]

17. as a practical matter, money in politics is the stifling of speech.

it primarily serves to flood the media with the moneyed point of view, repeated ad nauseum, thereby drowning out competing views.

as a practical matter, money in politics leads to less speech, not more.

[hifiguy]

20. A crucial point.

[riqster]

39. To build on that: money is a finite resource. Concentration of wealth limits the supply to others.

That is why the monetization of speech limits the number of speakers.

[unblock]

40. so is airtime, and big money drives up the prices

relegating third parties and other voices to 30-second spots around 4am weekdays.

[riqster]

42. Very nice catch. Thanks.

[Blue Owl]

18. K&R

[riqster]

36. T & Y

[Nye Bevan]

21. Actually, money is speech.

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Someone who has a few hundred dollars can afford to pay for an ad criticizing a politician in his local newspaper. Someone who has no money cannot. And without eviscerating the First Amendment this will always be the case.

What is needed is to ensure that relatively poor people can pool their resources and make their voices heard via entities such as unions and advocacy groups (such as Planned Parenthood). That is why it is important for such entities to have free speech rights (even though they are not "natural persons&quot .

[riqster]

25. The problem is, relatively poor people often don't have extra money.

Or even enough money for essentials, let alone to buy speech.

Monetizing expression will limit the ability of those at the bottom to be heard amongst the din of the 1%. In fact, it already has.

[Orrex]

27. Whew. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to set my watch today.

And without eviscerating the First Anendment this will always be the case.

Not at all true. We can simply declare that freedom of political speech is guaranteed for natural persons. Nothing in the first amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution, AFAIK) equates money to speech.

What is needed is to ensure that relatively poor people can pool their resources and make their voices heard via entities such as unions and advocacy groups (such as Planned Parenthood). That is why it is important for such entities to have free speech rights (even though they are not "natural persons&quot .

Again, not at all true. Individuals are certainly free to pool their resources to express their political speech, and this freedom of association is indeed guaranteed by the first amendment.

There is no reason why corporations must or should enjoy this same right, especially insofar as the alleged rights of these fictional persons tend to overpower the actual rights of actual people.

[Nye Bevan]

32. How would guaranteeing "freedom of political speech for natural persons"

enable poor people to buy newspaper ads to the same extent as rich people?

[Orrex]

33. We could easily set a cap on "speech" permitted in the guise of political spending

Peg it to 1% or 5% or 10% of the national median income--problem solved.

This kind of restriction would fall well within the limits of constitutional permissibility, in the same way that I'm not "free" to scream in your ear at a volume sufficient to cause injury.

[Nye Bevan]

38. Again, with such a cap, someone with no money would not be able to pay for newspaper ads,

and someone who had money would.

But you do seem to be shifting from "money is not speech" to "because money is speech, political speech needs to be limited", which is less snappy but a more honest expression of what some are arguing.

[Orrex]

41. I still don't accept that money is speech

Money is a means toward buying a megaphone, so to speak. Since an outright ban on such purchases is unlikely to fly, I propose instead that everyone be granted equal opportunity to buy a megaphone.

Again, with such a cap, someone with no money would not be able to pay for newspaper ads, and someone who had money would.

After I posted, I realized a simple solution to this. People under a certain income level could easily be granted the annual amount equal to the cap permitted per median income, currently about $310 dollars. This could be provided as a tax credit or a simple subsidy on par with SNAP or LIHEAP.

Problem solved.

[Nye Bevan]

66. So you are proposing to limit every American to $310 of spending on political speech per year? (nt)

[Orrex]

73. As opposed to some people getting to spend billions on it? Hell yes.

They can still speak as much as they want. They just can't spend more than $310 annually for their megaphone.

[badtoworse]

77. Would you be OK if your other civil rights were similarly limited?

How about if the 5th Amendment only protected $10,000 from government seizure and the rest were fair game? How about if the government limited you 1 gig a year of posting on the internet? Same logic

[Orrex]

78. Would you argue that we have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

How can you tolerate that gross violation of your civil rights?

[badtoworse]

81. I'm fine with that. Civil rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

Limiting your access to the things that make exercise of your civil right possible is not reasonable and has been held unconstitutional.

[Orrex]

82. Why can't I simply buy an election outright, then?

If I have the money, then how can I be expected to tolerate that gross violation of my civil rights?

[badtoworse]

85. Because they're not for sale.

At the end of the day, people still vote whatever way they want regardless of how much political advertising they've been exposed to.

[Orrex]

86. Of course they are.

At the end of the day, people still vote whatever way they want regardless of how much political advertising they've been exposed to.

If that's true then we can ban political advertising altogether! Problem solved!

[badtoworse]

88. Now you're just being obtuse

[Orrex]

91. And you're being naive.

You've offered no actual argument supporting the claim that money is speech, and you cling to the quaint idea that we're all strong-willed indepenent thinkers untainted by the manipulations of political advertisement.

I'll be it's lovely to live in that rose-colored world.

[badtoworse]

92. It costs money to communicate your message to people.

Communicating your message (e.g. your platform or facts and opinion about political issues) is an essential element of running an election. That is so obvious I didn't think it needed to be pointed out.

[Orrex]

93. That doesn't mean that money is protected speech

If anything, you're arguing that everyone should have free access to media outlets because their speech is free.

You're assuming your conclusion without supporting it. That is so obvious that I didn't think you'd need to have it pointed out, but here we are.

[badtoworse]

94. This whole thread and you especially are using a strawman argument

The issue isn't whether money by itself is protected speech and everyone knows that. Money is the medium used to obtain the means of engaging in free speech, i.e. purchasing advertising, airtime, paper and ink for posters, etc. Would you seriously argue that restricting the amount of paper and ink you can use doesn't violate free speech? How is limiting the amount of money you can spend on paper and ink any different? You'd be laughed at in court if you argued that it is, but that is exactly what you are arguing here.

You're exercising your 1st Amendment rights by posting on the internet. Isn't your right to buy as much bandwidth as is available protected? By your logic, the government could restrict the amount of money you spend on internet service so that you had only very limited access. Your right to vote is protected. If the government can restrict the amount of money you spend on engaging in free speech, why can't it restrict the amount of money you spend on transportation getting to the voting booth? By that logic, you still have the right to vote, but you might have to walk 10 miles to do it.

[Orrex]

95. You use a strawman to accuse me of using a strawman. Cute.

The issue isn't whether money by itself is protected speech and everyone knows that.

Actually, that claim has been made a number of times, more or less. Specifically, it is asserted as fact that the expenditure of money is protected speech; but this assertion thus far has not been credibly supported.

However, here are my actual claims:

1. Corporations do not and should not enjoy the same first amendment protections as natural persons.
2. The expenditure of money is not and should not be protected speech under the first amendment.

To date I have seen neither of these refuted.

You're exercising your 1st Amendment rights by posting on the internet. Isn't your right to buy as much bandwidth as is available protected? By your logic, the government could restrict the amount of money you spend on internet service so that you had only very limited access.

And that's the strawman. You mischaracterize my argument and then attack your mischaracterization instead of attacking my argument.

Suppose that internet access is unavailable in my state but is available for free in another state: why isn't the government obligated to stop this grotesque restriction of my first amendment rights? And suppose that my bank has a daily withdrawal limit of $10,000 but I want to spend $15,000 on a political ad; can I sue to end this violation of my constitutionally protected political expression?

The answer, of course, is that the the first amendment famously guarantees freedom of expression but does not guarantee your right to be heard.


While we're at it, the first amendment isn't the catch-all that some seem to think it is, nor does it cover all forms of expression. You yourself acknowledged this when you offerd the rather wiggly answer "Civil rights are subject to reasonable restrictions."

If you're arguing that unlimited political expenditure is protected by the first amendment, then why isn't outright bribery permitted? Why can't I hand Candidate A an envelope full of cash and say "you will vote in my interest on these key issues?" After all, I'm simply spending money as "the medium used to obtain the means of engaging in free speech."

For that matter, how dare the government restrict my freedom of expression by making it illegal for me to purchase Schedule I narcotics? If that's how I choose to express my politics, then why shouldn't I have carte blanche to do so?

[badtoworse]

98. I'm done. Take it up with the SCOTUS

In Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 by a vote of 7-2, the Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. (It did uphold restrictions on direct campaign contributions.)

“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.”

[Orrex]

99. For the record, you haven't actually refuted anything I posted

Reviewing that decision (which I confess I didn't know by name), I find that it has been criticized for most of the same reasons that I've posted here.


All in all, Buckley v. Valeo seems like a bullshit decision on par with Citizens United. Your citation of it merely strengthens my conviction that the expenditure of money is not speech and should not be protected as such, regardless of the court's ruling.

[treestar]

90. Exactly

In the end, we are not mindless automatons - though one meets people who are close.

[Dr. Strange]

37. Why just political speech?

There's a lot of speech coming from corporations that I don't care for. (99.9% of MTV's programming, for example.)
Can I limit that?

[Dr. Strange]

46. May your crysknife chip and shatter...

and go limp, making those around you question your manhood and familial lineage!

-Ancient Fremen General Discussion Insult

[riqster]

50. I'm not mad, but since we're sharing such Bon mots:

Ancient Gascon wish: "May the road rise to meet...your face".

First time Grandma whipped that out, I goggled.

Then I thought about it, and laughed out loud.

Then I got in enorme merde for having been caught eavesdropping on the oldsters.

[riqster]

44. You can easily limit commercial speech. Don't consume it.

Political speech has broad and pernicious effects that an individual cannot thus filter.

[Dr. Strange]

47. Would that it were true.

Sadly, my refusal to watch MTV does not limit its broad and pernicious effect.

Idiocracy increasingly seems to be have been prophesy.

[ThoughtCriminal]

72. time is money

[Man from Pickens]

80. and space is a long long time

[treestar]

89. That is a good point

The limits in Citizen's United would apply to any organization.

[KittyWampus]

23. Nice catch

[Scuba]

30. If money is speech, then poverty is silence.

[riqster]

31. Perfectly said, as you so often do.

[grahamhgreen]

35. Nice

[hifiguy]

49. Perfect.

Ba-Zing!

[stillwaiting]

56. Well, that certainly describes America, doesn't it? nt

[jamzrockz]

87. I can still go to a public library

Write articles and post on a forum like DU and start talking. You can also go door to door and talk to your neighbors about political matters. I think the biggest problem in this country is that the voters would just listen to any idiot with the loudest voice. If the voters were any smarter, the amount of money and how loud you can spew it would have very little difference on who gets elected.

So no, poverty is NOT silence.

[dreamnightwind]

96. Human nature says otherwise

We need laws and regulations that work in real life, not ones that depend on perfect (nonexistent) humans to make them work.

Quantity and amplitude of speech have an easily demonstrable effect on public opinion. You can't have 99.999999% of speech advocating an incorrect position and the remaining 0.000001% of speech advocating the correct position and have a reasonable expectation that the majority of humans will see through the propaganda, or even that the majority of humans will have any exposure to the correct speech when it is drowned out by the amplification effects of millions or even billions of dollars. Humans, on any population-scale, aren't that smart or that resourceful, and they never will be, so constructing a society based on such a premise is to guarantee its downfall.

Poverty may not literally be silence, but the unlimited amplification of political speech by monied interests effectively renders the speech of the poor to be nothing more than unheard trees falling in a forest.

There have been recent, exhaustive studies that show how the interests of the vast majority of our citizens have virtually no correlation to legislative policy, with the interests of the rich being the sole determinant of such policy.

[SunSeeker]

34. So true on so many levels. nt

[riqster]

45. Yep. Wish I had come up with it.

[jonjensen]

48. If you don't arrest traitors on supreme court their treason will continue

Republicans behave themselves out of fear not decency because they are NOT! Arrest republicans on supreme court for treason and sedition and put them in holding cell in D.C. jail with african americans who are their because of them. Do this after holder arrests republicans in congress for treason sedition and sabotage.

[Ilsa]

53. We also need to frame the argument that Citizens United

Could allow noncitizens and foreign corporations to interfere in our elections. They need to be nervous about American elections being in the hands of our enemies.

I've read on message boards that some people think overturning Citizens United will cause loss of free speech. They need to be convinced that our democracy is at risk without making this change.

[Kablooie]

54. We've been reading it wrong all along. We have a right to "Fee Speech".

[riqster]

59. Constitutional autocorrect, eh?

[dreamnightwind]

97. Yes, feedumb isn't free - eom

[NYC_SKP]

55. Recommended. (nt)

[riqster]

67. Thanks

[daleanime]

57. K&R....

[MH1]

65. Seems like perfect English usage to me ... and an excellent way of putting it.

(What's wrong with it anyway? Just curious. Obviously I'm too many years away from grammar school, because it seems fine to me.)

[riqster]

68. The use of "free" for two different scales. Cost and liberty, conflated.

[thesquanderer]

69. That's poetry for you (n/t)

[riqster]

70. Indeed. I'm a wee bit of a pedant, in truth.

But not so much that I was gonna pass up sharing that awesome slogan!

[Generic Brad]

75. Simple and true

It still baffles me that a majority of the Supreme Court cannot grasp this concept. Since they can't, then I have to cynically believe they were paid off in some way to make their absurd Citizens United ruling.

[Man from Pickens]

79. money is property

of course, with the excessive copyright/trademark/patent system we have now, speech is also property...

[moondust]

83. If money is speech, why aren't bullets?

C'mon man, shooting somebody is just another form of free expression.

[riqster]

101. Then we need billion-round clips to get our message out!

[hifiguy]

100. I think it safe to say that Jefferson and Madison would

find nothing to object to in limiting the rights set forth in the First Amendment to natural persons. Given Jefferson's extraordinary and oft-expressed distaste for "moneyed incorporations" he would doubtless be horrified by the notion that they be considered on the same footing as actual citizens.

[Orsino]

102. If money is speech, and speech is a right...

...when will we complete the syllogism?

[riqster]

103. Like I said in the OP, it could have been phrased better.

[napkinz]

104. ...

[napkinz]

105. ...

[riqster]

106. Sad, but true.