[drone]

While there are situations where the exercising of speech in that manner can cause harm (e.g. very large contributions to politicians), I believe that harm is outweighed by the good. No on can outlaw me donating to the EFF, or other charitable organizations, which would most certainly happen when it suits the lawmakers' purposes, given that it is enshrined as speech and protected by the 1st amendment. Just like the first amendment protects hateful speech, it also protects beneficial and helpful speech. Perhaps you're not thinking of Buckley v. Valeo, but instead of Citizens United, that countered that speech could not be restricted because it was done by a corporation. I am not venturing into that territory here.

There is almost always some harm done by liberty, that is the pain of humanity. There is much further harm done when we restrict liberty to protect the senses. That is my opinion, and I am as surely unlikely to be swayed from it as you are yours.

[kefka]

I was not up on my case law regarding Buckley v. Valeo, but I do remember now after having looked it up. Unfortunately, I don't have the legal backbone to discuss case law proper. I was trying to discuss more akin to philosopher language.

After having slept on why money in politics bothers me, I think I can better explain why it does.

Normally, a vote from me counts as the same as a vote from any resident in Indiana. And I can extrapolate that to show that my vote is pretty much equal to any citizen in the US. When we add money, it changes that "1 person, 1 vote" to "1 rich person, lots of votes: 1 poor person, 1 vote"

When we distill that down, we are saying that a rich person is much more important than an average income person, or even that homeless indigent voters are worthless. That doesn't sit right with me.