[oatmeal_coffee]

The question is whether or not to ban lobbying is not a reasonable one, if only because lobbying would not be able to be banned just on a principle of free speech alone. People have a voice—good, bad, whatever—and lobbying provides an efficient means of communicating that voice. The question is rather how to reduce, if not obviate, the damage caused by the role of money in lobbying without violating free speech rights.

[kyllo]

Yeah... I think the whole premise behind SuperPACs is the ridiculous notion that money = speech and campaign contributions are protected free speech.

[snsr]

Money is not speech, despite the Citizens United ruling.

[twoodfin]

So Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?

[lhc-]

News coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.

[gfrdgre4]

LOL what? The New York Times has endorsed a Democratic president for the last 50 years or something.

[uptown]

Agreed. But news agencies seem to cross that divide when they feel the need to endorse political candidates.

[twoodfin]

It doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?

[seanflyon]

Is it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.