[vlovich123]

It’s not quite so clear cut. From Wikipedia:

> These attempts at limiting the content of the mail were upheld by the Supreme Court, but in the 20th century, the Court took a more assertive approach in striking down postal laws which limited free expression, particularly as it related to political materials.[7][8] The First Amendment thus provided a check on the Postal Power.

And SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech. Of course mailing cash is a bit different than mailing political materials but you could make the case that it’s part of a political organizing campaign or payment for political materials. And mailing cash itself through the USPS is actually perfectly legal as long as it’s for a legal purpose.

[JumpCrisscross]

> SCOTUS these days also tends to equate cash as a form of political speech

No, it does not.

[vlovich123]

What an eloquent rebuttal. I’m convinced. But for someone more skeptical, maybe elaborate how that wasn’t in effect the ruling in citizens united?

[JumpCrisscross]

> how that wasn’t in effect the ruling in citizens united?

Donating to a candidate or sponsoring an ad that says things about a candidate are protected political speech, requiring a strict standard for the Congress to regulate. Citizens reasoned that if that’s true individually it should be true for a group, on the basis—in part—of freedom of assembly, whether that be an advocacy group or corporation.

Money = speech is a colloquial but wrong summary. Money donated to a candidate or used to buy speech is protected, whether done individually or as a group. The simplest resolution is to read the opinion.

(Logically speaking, it makes sense. It’s just absurd to construct the freedom of assembly as automatically making all rights natural persons enjoy commutative.)