I'm seeking the advice or opinion of any Constitutional law or other legal expert, or anyone who's knowledgeable enough. I want to know how the spending of money equals free speech. Please elucidate the most scholarly argument possible for the justification for the entirely psychotic (as I see it) notion of money (ownership) and free speech being one in the same.

Money equals ownership or possession of goods and/or services. Period. What else does money do? Here is an example of free speech: Secrecy-BASED government is the biggest and most basic problem humanity has... So there you have it. Money is money and free speech is just what its name/terminology says, and nothing else, unless someone can argue truly convincingly and truly rationally otherwise.

Money can purchase access to mass-media (whether that be a flyer you find in your letterbox or an advertisement in a newspaper or an advertisement on TV or the lease of a hall for a speech by a guest).

If you take away money from the Free Speech argument and say that no one can spend a dime supporting their point of view, then yes, you have reduced their ability to get across their message...you've curtailed free speech (which is typically defined as speech "for or against your government" by the way).

There are still "boundaries" of course - you can't slander or yell "fire" when there isn't one, etc.

Originally posted by bowlbyville

Money can purchase access to mass-media (whether that be a flyer you find in your letterbox or an advertisement in a newspaper or an advertisement on TV or the lease of a hall for a speech by a guest).

If you take away money from the Free Speech argument and say that no one can spend a dime supporting their point of view, then yes, you have reduced their ability to get across their message...you've curtailed free speech (which is typically defined as speech "for or against your government" by the way).

There are still "boundaries" of course - you can't slander or yell "fire" when there isn't one, etc.

The problem is this is used to influence campaigns, it is very easy to over look this.
I do not have the free speech to donate to a politician in return for a favor, yet this is the end result... Fortunately when you have enough money, laws do not matter,
influence pedaling, bribery are all illegal acts, I think it is very sad that many of you
have framed this as a free speech issue. This is a complete undermining of our process, not gonna get small government this way... What a nice technicality for the elites to use in their arsenal of GOOD.

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
I'm seeking the advice or opinion of any Constitutional law or other legal expert, or anyone who's knowledgeable enough. I want to know how the spending of money equals free speech. Please elucidate the most scholarly argument possible for the justification for the entirely psychotic (as I see it) notion of money (ownership) and free speech being one in the same.

Money equals ownership or possession of goods and/or services. Period. What else does money do?

Okay, first of all, you may disregard my reply as it is neither scholarly or legally binding. It is just an opinion; my own.

If that fails your entrance exam, that's a drag and I sure do apologize.

I dislike the buying and selling of law and legislation but it does happen that it cost to run a decent campaign these days. You could be Einstein but without dollars to tell everyone who you were, you could lose an election.

We are a big, diverse nation and so too we should be smart enough to know that we have to wade into, and then dig out of, the loads of BS that are set before us on nearly every single matter of importance.

Ignorance does not happen by way of random, natural event. God did not make ignorance as a secondary thing. It must be embraced, homogenized and then wed by us, on purpose.

Even the illiterate know when someone is yanking their chain.

But let's do be honest here... we want to be led sometimes when the leader is someone we happen to be politically aligned with. In these instances, ignorance and denial are entirely selective and all the dollars in the world would not change a thing.

People will believe what they want to believe no matter how much money, or how many words you throw at them. The difference finally comes when the words mean something... after that, the money is merely sauce for the goose.

You cannot invent zombies. You can only breed them.

While I know I probably go against the grain in this notion here on this site, I am one to never back down from my convictions.

It is not money itself that is free-speech, but rather the means to the end. Since producing fliers, a newspaper, run a radio station, or even to hit a little bit home, run a web-site such as this one requires funding. That funding, 99.9% of the time is in the form of some type of monetary transaction.

Since the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", Congress and the Supreme Court must recognize that the exercise of that free speech might require money to produce.

If a law were to be put in place limiting the money that someone could spend to say, produce a movie that brings to light information on a candidate it would effectively stifle free speech by requiring the producer of that movie (by extension the producer of the speech) to seek legal council and/or face penalties. That was the very heart of 441b of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that was struck down.

The law that was in place ostensibly masked censorship under the guise of reform.

This very website relies on the ability to allow the exercise of free-speech (within the confines of a private organization.) To do so, money is spent to maintain the site. If money was not to recognized as a tool of free speech than this site would not operate.

Expressing your political views through campaigns, advertisements, etc, costs money. Political views are free speech, so spending money to that end is a component of free speech.

Arbitrary transfers of wealth aren't immune from regulation. Bribery is not considered free speech, and transfers over $10,000/year are taxed.

Wait for the next shoe to drop:
"If you have no money, you have no right to free speech."

Money, put simply, is power.

The power to by a megaphone and be heard over the competition, in more ways than one. Certainly, we've seen how money can benefit political campaigns: Obama spent twice as much as McCain during the 2008 election, and, from personal experience, I don't remember seeing more than one or two ads for the latter, whereas I saw plenty of Obama commercials.

Money pays for ads, all sorts of influence in the public media, and it can deceive the public eye with fancy clothes, making somebody look educated. You don't even have to know what you're doing, anymore. The key is to look confidant.

But, money does NOT equal free speech. It just equals volume, and it can give the power to remove those who use their free speech rights against you. The only thing money does to free speech is give the wielder a podium and a greenbacked stick to bat away the opposition. IMO.