The fact that the Supreme Court is even hearing this is troubling enough, let alone contemplating what the whack-job robes will do...
Am I going to be left again reading the aftermath, trying in vain to figure out who is dumber, Scalia or Thomas? I hope not...
"...deters wealthy people from running for office..."
...much like NOT having $350,000 to blow discourages ME from running for office.
The trouble with your conclusion (that money is speech) is that it renders any form of campaign financial contribution limitations unconstitutional.
If you use the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment it shouldn't.
I don't see how the 14th trumps the 1st.
I don't think its a matter of "trumping." If you notice, I made my comment in the context of a largely for-profit media. Perhaps I should add to it: in a for-profit system in which there are no limits on campaign spending, money equals speech. Does this mean I think money should equal speech? no. But its what I see around me in a system that doesn't limit money, and in which access to media is largely controlled by money.
The media is the platform by and large that candidates use to give their message to the public. They also use a substantial amount of direct mail. Look at how electoral analysis highlights the amount of money candidates raise. It's largely seen as an ability to compete. That's because it's equated with the ability to get one's message out--to speak to the masses.
The argument can be made that this gives "more speech" to wealthy people, or those with access to wealth...leading to an advantage that hinders the ability of less affluent or connected people to compete for public office. A further argument can be made that this in turn hinders the ability of the public to effectively choose people for public office who truly represent them. We do live in a representative democracy, after all.
I'm far from being a constitutional scholar, so this is largely off the cuff. But it seems to me that the equal protection clause has been used in this country to advance equal opportunity for racial minorities and women. In light of what I said above about money and speech, and given the great disparities in wealth between anglos and communities of color in the aggregate as well as individually, I think a case can be made that communities of color are at a disadvantage when it comes to having the opportunity to elect public officials that truly represent them. From this reasoning, you might think of the unequal influence of money in elections as an infringement on their voting rights in so far as they don't have adequate choices. This would justify campaign financing laws. We’re not talking about shopping for a new car after all…we’re taking about the ability to effectively participate in our Democracy.
That's one line of reasoning. We could return to the first amendment and the protection of free speech, and flip this on its head also. Given the structural disparities of wealth in this country, the ability of wealthy individuals or corporations to dominate the public discourse of elections violates the right to free speech of less affluent actors, or communities. Unless of course you think "free speech" is solely equal to ones ability to use their vocal cords.
Commenting by HaloScan
