General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should the First Amendment be modified so that speech influencing elections can be regulated? [View all]Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)This is the wrong approach.
We need to get MONEY out of our elections, not speech.
I have nothing against someone stepping out and vigorously advocating for a candidate or a cause or, conversely, challenging a competing candidate or cause.
My issue is with MONEY. Money is NOT speech. Speech is speech. If you want to go out to a local park and stand on a bucket and speak in favor of your candidate (or against another), go for it.
I draw the line when behind the scenes money such as the bound-for-hell Koch brothers, Adelson, others BUY speech by giving donations to campaigns in unlimited quantities. I would agree that money is speech to the extent that your money enables candidates and causes to promote and compete. But that cannot be endless. Otherwise the person with the most money will simply buy the election.
This is what the reich wing thought they could do with their millions in 2012. It did not work but that isn't to say it won't work in 2014, 2016, 2018 and beyond.