[chihuahua]

It seems that it's a matter of interpretation. I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that, just that the supreme court seems to have already weighed in on the matter.

[xref]

You’re both right, the Citizens United ruling said cash was speech according to the 1st amendment if it was an “independent expenditure” ie Super PACs etc. You can’t donate unlimited amounts directly to a candidate, but you can to “independent entities”.

IANAL so I’m not sure why you can’t just donate it all directly to a candidate, perhaps a different section of the constitution?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[Gibbon1]

> I thought (but I could be wrong) that the supreme court decided that donating money is "speech" and therefore protected.

Yeah and constitution needs to be changed to subject the supreme court to confirmation by the voters every so often.

[arcticbull]

It can also be amended to separate money and speech. A constitutional amendment is the way to rectify poor Supreme Court rulings, the way the 14th amendment was brought in specifically to overturn Dred Scott.

[cornell532]

How is money not speech? Jeff Bezos is able to buy the Washington Post (or multiple TV stations if he wanted) and can say anything he wants under the guise of free speech.

I don’t have Jeff Bezos’ resources, but if I buy a single television ad to advocate for my position I should be regulated?

I don’t see a difference between media companies publishing material and overt partisans buying advertisements.

[arcticbull]

Money isn’t speech it’s volume. Anyone can speak, the one with more money yells loudest. The constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to free screaming.