SCOTUS Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Contributions

[angelatc]

I said privilege before I said right, didn't I?



No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.

Out of rep, but that is spot on.

 

[PRB]

Out of rep, but that is spot on.

Thanks, don't worry, there'll be more opportunities later

 

[otherone]

No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

 

[angelatc]

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

You're quoting Wikipedia, not the actual written decision. You realize that, right?

This is from the decision itself:

Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a nonspeech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment.

 

[PRB]

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech, and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

Thanks! That actually puts things in context and perspective.

Counts as, means "it's a form of" that's not the same as "=". There's a difference between saying "spending money is a means of expression" vs "having money is a form of speech".

Meaning not all money is speech, and not all speech is money. To be clear, what they're saying is "spending money can be a means of expressing speech", this is different than saying having money is having speech, one of countless absurd conclusions you can come up with.

I appreciate that you dug into this and taught me, that the idea of political contributions as a form of speech (and restrictions of one would constitute restriction on the other), is not new from McCutcheon.

If people are not cars, why are people regulated on roads? Don't we know cars are what actually run at 40-100mph?

 

[PRB]

You're quoting Wikipedia, not the actual written decision. You realize that, right?

This is from the decision itself:

Yes, "money counts as speech", although not in the opinion and ruling itself, is not a bad summary, or at least I'm willing to respond to it.

The funny thing is, if money was NOT speech, then why is Sarah Palin complaining that Duck Dynasty was threatened for cancellation? We simply can't have it both ways. If money DOESN'T buy speech, then what's the harm in it?

 

[eduardo89]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Being a 'citizen' just means that the federal government find itself entitled to your labour and your body.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that voting is a right/privilege afforded only to citizens.

 

[PRB]

Being a 'citizen' just means that the federal government find itself entitled to your labour and your body.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that voting is a right/privilege afforded only to citizens.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

contrast this with "right of the people"

 

[eduardo89]

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

contrast this with "right of the people"

Where does the Constitution ever say that the right to vote is limited to only US citizens?

 

[PRB]

Where does the Constitution ever say that the right to vote is limited to only US citizens?

It says citizens have a right
It doesn't say non-citizens have the right

I got a better question, where does it say the law and enforcement of the Constitution ends at the nation's borders, and where are the borders specified in the document? No answer? Ok, so that means the Constitution can apply to anywhere, anybody, without consent, after all, I bet it doesn't say anything about only those who consented are governed by it.

 

[eduardo89]

It says citizens have a right
It doesn't say non-citizens have the right

It doesn't say non-citizens don't have the right to vote.