Hey. USSC ruled money was speech so why shouldn't they also rule business is creativity?
Can you produce a quotation from a USSC ruling saying money is speech? Or do you just figure if enough censorship fans say it enough times then that makes it true?
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.
Money and speech linked. Restrictions on money unlawfully restrict speech.
Did you read your own link?
"The major holdings were as follows:
The Court upheld limits on contributions to candidates.
The Court struck down limits on expenditures by candidates.
The Court struck down limits on independent expenditures (i.e., expenditures by other groups or individuals than candidates and political parties).
The Court upheld mandatory disclosure and reporting provisions, but it narrowed the types of speech to which they could apply.
The Court upheld a system of voluntary government funding of campaigns, including limits on spending by candidates who choose to accept government subsidies.
The Court struck down the system by which members of Congress directly appointed Federal Election Commission commissioners."
They
upheld limits on contributions to candidates. You have a right to give a candidate as much of your speech as you please, but the government may limit how much money you can give her. If the USSC had been ruling money was speech then they would have imposed the same restrictions on money laws as on speech laws.
They
upheld mandatory disclosure and reporting provisions. You have a right to speak anonymously for a candidate, but the government may prohibit you from funding her anonymously. If the USSC had been ruling money was speech then they would have imposed the same restrictions on money laws as on speech laws.
Buckley v. Valeo is an example of the USSC ruling that money is not speech.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations
Yeah, and? So the USSC ruled that the government labeling what people say "corporate speech" doesn't mean it can get away with fining or jailing people for speaking without permission. Whoop de do. They already crossed that bridge. They already committed that crime against humanity in
New York Times Co. v. United States. They already destroyed democracy by ruling that the New York Times had a First Amendment right to publish the Pentagon Papers, and Richard Nixon had no right to stop them. The New York Times is a corporation, but that doesn't magic its employee's First Amendment rights away. Do you feel that Nixon should have been allowed to censor the New York Times because money is not speech?
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC
"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."[
I don't care how you peel it. If the court rules that if money is restricted it limits speech. It is speech by extension.
What the heck kind of reasoning is that?
Suppose Congress passed a law saying to all the Jews in America, "The 1st Amendment promises you freedom of religion, so you have a right to put up a menorah in your house. But you may not spend more than $100 on menorahs. If you want to spend $10,000 and put up a dozen menorahs in every room in your house and out in the front yard too, that's just going too far. Enough is enough. A hundred dollars worth of them should be plenty for one Jew." Do you imagine for one second that the USSC would uphold such a law?
So when a Jew who really really liked menorahs challenged the law, and the USSC overturned it, you would describe that event as "Hey. USSC ruled money was religion."?
My view is that she can buy as large a megaphone as she can afford. However she must do the speaking and be recognized as the one speaking. If she wants to be part of a group getting a megaphone then she must accept the necessity of actually creating and delivering her speech though it. No one's political speech should be for sale to another.
Are you seriously suggesting that if someone wants to scrawl "Vote against Donald" onto a thousand pieces of paper and hand them out to passersby, she has a right to do it, but if her hand gets tired after the first 50 so she takes her leaflet off to Kinko's and pays them to run off another 950 copies for her, then Congress should be allowed to put her and the Kinko's manager in jail for that, because that makes it Kinko's political speech, which shouldn't be for sale?
