Is Money Free Speech? - Learn Liberty

Prof. Bradley Smith illustrates some ways money is used in practice to ensure people have free speech. For example, money used to build a place of worship or to run a newspaper or radio station could be considered a form of speech. The same can be said for money used to purchase a megaphone so a speaker can be heard over a crowd. If these uses of money are protected as a form of speech, does that mean money used on a political campaign is also a form of speech?

What do you think? Why or why not? Please leave your answers in the comments.

SUBSCRIBE:

FOLLOW US:

LEARN MORE:

LEARN LIBERTY

[rawheas]

The more spending on speech is limited the more underhanded everything becomes. Regulations don't restrain the super rich.

It would just turn politics into a game of bribing for celebrity endorsements, paying for references in the news and media, and cleaver accounting for advertising.

I wish we could regulate our way into a fair playing ground but good intentions mean nothing.

[scaberdalion]

If money is free speech, rich people have more speech than poor people. Does that sound equal? The government doesn't have to control speech, but it can make the speech more equitably available to those with less privileges.

[Oshyrath]

NO! MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH! So, if I buy cocaine, can I use the defense that I'm using "free speech"?

[hikari_no_yume]

The problem with saying "you can spend as much as you like", is it means whoever has the most money, not necessarily the most supporters, has the loudest voice. So if the top 1% of society are challenged by the bottom 5%, the 1% will win because they have more money.

[Pedrotheporcupine]

I DONT KNOW I JUST WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD!

[VerlTheSkeptic]

We do not lose our right to free speech when we come together as a corporation. Only individuals act. When corporations spend money, it is the action of the individuals who make up the corporation, no some kind of non-person robot.

[DaHuntsman]

exactly, not enough americans actually look at the issues politicians are on, and figuring out what that will do to them

[mjedelman]

What's the alternative? Letting the government decide how much money/speech you should be allowed? Democracy sometimes allows the majority to shout down the minority. That's why we have a Constitution.

[theatheistpaladin]

"Politicians in power can use gov't money to help their friends/family. They can also use gov't money to advertise for themselves."
No one has done that nor is able to do that. If they did it would have to happen according to regulation. I don't think the people would stand for regulation that gave the incumbent all the campaign money from tax dollars.

2. Uniform infrastructure can and often does provide superior results to non uniformed infrastructure. A classic example would be highways which would NOT exist in your system.

Your system would do away with such structures leaving a chaotic and disorganized mess in its wake.

Now to clarify unified infrastructure should only be put in place as long as it is more efficient, then localized infrastructure. If this condition is not met then it is a case of government overreach.

[xcvsdxvsx]

an unfortunate reality. even more unfortunate is that the fact that this is not a problem that can be solved by government at least not without creating even bigger problems in the process. The best way to combat this is to take steps in our own lives to insure that we are examining everyone arguments rationally, objectively and with an equally open mind no matter how loudly or quietly they may be communicated.

[DuraRaj]

Those who have more money are heard louder. Those who does not have money are never heard.

[thomasklingenberg]

It should absolutely be a protected form of "speech." And by "protected, " I don't think we need any new statutory laws to say as much, we should be repealing and removing existing laws that have been written to curtail or hinder how we spend our money to support our opinions.

[iknowmytables]

bribery is wrong and should not be confused with free speech. Government intervention is unfavorable, but companies bribing politicians in the form of campaign donations to ensure that they receive subsidies is just unacceptable.

[FrankTurk]

There's no question this ought to be free speech. The question really is this: don't the rules governing free speech govern political advertising?

[gangsta]

Bribery is exchanging something of value for a favor. Lobbying is going to a representative and making a case for a change in the law. Big difference.

Post #2

What prevents less known candidates from being heard is the very money you speak off. The amount of money in the political climate and controlled by both major parties is incredibly enormous. This creates a barrier for entry for new candidates to enter the political climate since the only reasonable way to do so is through obtaining incredible amounts of capital.

[rplaughl]

It is wrong to suggest that a person's right to free speech is the same as someone's right to make financial contributions to a political campaign, because the right to free speech is granted to everyone regardless of their wealth whereas a person's ability to contribute funds to a campaign is directly related to their economic prosperity. The Founders of our country did not say that only those people who have attained a certain level of economic success can speak freely, they say every citizen can.

To fix this problem, we should vote people into office that will institute a cap on the amount of financial contributions each citizen can make, and if corporations are people (which I don't agree with), then they would be capped equally. The cap should be the lesser of two numbers: 1) The total campaign funds spent on the last election (to keep things simple) divided by the population of the US, or 2) A nominal, relatively-small percentage, such as perhaps 10%, of the average citizen's yearly income.

I invite you to please educate me on why this is not a good idea.

[kevd]

Except that unlike private companies, the government does not pay for its mistakes; taxpayers do. Bad companies that do not serve their customers fail and go out of business (unless the government bails them out) but bad government agencies keep going, keep expanding and rack up ever higher bills. When was the last time you heard of a government department shutting down?

[badluckwitcarpet]

One of the problems with the above argument is that, yes, churches need money to be able to run. I'm not arguing that we need the organized church system that we have; in fact Paul rejected the taking of money for his guidance in the New Testament. However, it's not the church's job to protect the people from itself. It is the government's job to protect people from itself. Historically, in this country, that is.