There are many reasons to be concerned about both the impact of money on our political process and the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. But critics of Citizens United, including those calling for a constitutional amendment to overrule it, have too often made the mistake of grounding their argument on the claim that "money is not speech."
Organizations like Move to Amend, ballot measures in Boulder, Colorado and Madison Wisconsin, city council resolutions in Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, and thousands of individuals protesting at the Supreme Court on the second anniversary of Citizens United have all embraced this slogan. Although the critics of Citizens United might well be right to condemn it and to call for a constitutional amendment to overrule it, they are misguided in their reliance on the refrain that "money is not speech."
Of course, money is not "speech." Money is money, a car is a car, and a ribbon is a ribbon. These are objects, not speech. But all of these objects, and many more besides, can be used to facilitate free speech. Consider a car. The government can lawfully impose all sorts of restrictions on how, when and where we can drive a car, and no one would argue that those restrictions implicate the First Amendment.
But suppose a city enacts a law prohibiting any person to drive a car in order to get to a political demonstration. Such a law would clearly implicate the First Amendment, not because a car is speech, but because the law restricts the use of a car for speech purposes.
Similarly, a ribbon is a ribbon. A ribbon is not speech. But a law that prohibits anyone to wear a pink ribbon for expressive purposes would clearly implicate the First Amendment, because it restricts the use of a ribbon for speech purposes.
Like a car or a ribbon, money is not speech. But when government regulates the use of money for speech purposes, it implicates the First Amendment. Suppose, for example, an individual at an Occupy protest burns a dollar bill to convey her disdain for corporate America. A dollar bill is not speech, fire is not speech, but a government law prohbiting any person to burn money as a symbolic expression of opposition to corporate America would surely implicate the First Amendment.
The point is simple. Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue. Thus, a law that prohibits political candidates to spend money to pay for the cost of printing leaflets, or that forbids individuals to contribute to their favorite political candidates to enable them to buy airtime to communicate their messages, directly implicates the First Amendment. Such laws raise First Amendment questions, not because money is speech, but because the purpose of the expenditure or contribution is to facilitate expression.
Indeed, not a single justice of the United States Supreme Court who has voted in any of the more than a dozen cases involving the constitutionality of campaign finance regulations, regardless of which way he or she came out in the case, has ever embraced the position that money is not speech. It is simply not a persuasive or even coherent way to frame the issue. If it were, then the government could make it a crime for any person to use money to buy a book.
More to the point, if the Constitution were amended to say that "money is not speech," then the government could constitutionally prohibit anyone to spend or contribute even a single dollar in the political process. In a world in which speech costs money, this would give a huge advantage to incumbents and effectively destroy our democracy. It simply will not do to insist that "money is not speech."
This is not to say, however, that the government cannot constitutionally regulate the use of money in politics. The fact that an object is used to facilitate speech does not mean that it is immune from regulation. The use of a loudspeaker is speech, but the government can regulate the decibel level. Burning a dollar bill for expressive purposes is speech, but the government can prohibit anyone from doing so near an open gas line. And the same is true for campaign contributions and expenditures. When the government attempts to regulate the use of money for expressive purposes it implicates the First Amendment, but it does not necessarily violate it.
If the critics of Citizens United and the advocates of a constitutional amendment to overrule it want to be taken seriously, they must move beyond superficial slogans and focus on the real issue at stake: When should the government be allowed to regulate political contributions and expenditures -- even if they are speech?
Of course the real issue, as we all know, is that vast amounts of money amplify one speaker's "voice" to the point of effectively drowning out everybody else's speech. The First Amendment was written in a time when "free speech" meant standing on a soapbox, or in a town meeting, and talking to your neighbors; one person's voice couldn't be much louder than another's. Even if you used a printing press, it would be hard to imagine one person's press utterly overwhelming the production of another person's press. That's not the world we live in now: political discourse takes place largely on television, and no ordinary citizen can afford even ten seconds of television time.
The truth is that, with or without other rights no one could talk while "indefinite detained" (by any army force) and exercise any free speech right in front of a court! I see so little in press upon that outrageous detail in nowadays American law, that sometimes I think the press already see itself as possible to be "indefinite detained"!!
If the President meant his "reservations" regarding that law signed on the 31st of December 2011, than he should attack that part of the bill in front of the Supreme Court and ask to be removed as against the constitution and the international human rights laws (now part of many constitutional laws of many states that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and further amendments!)
"Even though an object may not itself be speech, if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue."
So, by extension, I can never lose my job because it enables the accumulation of money which facilitates free speech (pays for an internet connection, fuel for the car, printing fliers, etc.) Also, I cannot be denied health care - like prescription drugs - because there's nothing that interferes with the right to free speech like death.
Just think; I can be denied practically nothing - food, shelter, medicine, employment - as long as having those things can be deemed necessary to "enable free speech."
First, the First Amendment applies only to GOVERNMENT regulation; it has no effect on private citizens' interactions with you (e.g. your boss's right to fire you, or a gas station attendant's right to expect payment for gasoline).
Second, Stone explicitly says "The fact that an object is used to facilitate speech does not mean that it is immune from regulation." The government could legitimately regulate all these things, as long as the regulation applied to the "time, place, and manner" of your speech rather than the "content" of your speech.
Accomplish this and then our debates here will mean something.
People only work for those that pay them.
You get what you pay for.
Money in the context of purchasing things is a form of speech. You are saying when you purchase something I like it, or I need it, or I want it, thus comes the phrase put your money where your mouth is.
In the context of politics however, money and its affect on democracy needs to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Democracy works on the imperative principle that every voter has an equal voice as the next person, their vote. When money is allowed to be a form of speech, those with more of it have more of a say, while those with less of it have less of a say. That's no longer a democracy, and instead concentrates wealth, power, and undue influence from the people, to a subset of the people.
"Speech" in the context of the First Amendment is not only the ability to make the noise or broadcast the message. It is also the right to be heard.
Limiting money in political campaigns will not prevent voices from being heard, it will ensure that all voices are heard.
There was so much money contributed in the South Carolina primary ,the media couldn't find time for all the ads.
1) It would make the politicians currently taking donations be even MORE desperate for them.
2) It would not allow the people to choose if a good politician stays to do even more good.
Now then, one thing that we DO need to do is stop creating districts for Congress where a seat is safe. They should all be as close to square as possible. In the city they can be smaller squares to allow for greater population density, and in the country they can be bigger squares for the opposite reason. But each representative within a state should actually have to run for office without having a safe seat!
We need to construct regulations that candidates agree to follow that limit the influence of money or risk being taken off the ballot.