Along with the Supreme Court, there are many Americans that believe money is a form of speech and therefore, satisfied with the Citizens United court case decision. In fact, “57% of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech…” (Saad 1). They argue that money is necessary to communicate ideas and voice an opinion. The press is a form of free speech by and for the general public. Take away the New York Times’ funding, for example, and you have no Times newspapers, magazines, or a website since there would be no money to pay all the workers behind the media. Taking away their funds would be a serious infringement on citizens’ rights to freedom of the press.
In many ways, politicians act as the voice of the people. They are elected to represent their constituents’ ideas and beliefs in Congress. Political candidates need money to educate the public of their ideas and in turn, represent the public’s voice in the government. People can then give money to their desired candidate to hopefully get them elected and have their opinions represented in the end.
Campaign finance reform opponents say that “meddling with how people can financially support candidates, and how much money candidates can receive, limits the speech of both supports and candidates. Because voters won’t elect a politician they've never heard of, politicians need to advertise. Given this, candidates rely on money to buy communication” (McGrath 1).
Money can be seen as a facilitator and medium for speech. It is not literally speech, but “if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue” (Levi 1). Imagine being allowed to speak freely but denied the right to use your own money to buy a megaphone so that your thoughts can be more clearly heard.
In many ways, politicians act as the voice of the people. They are elected to represent their constituents’ ideas and beliefs in Congress. Political candidates need money to educate the public of their ideas and in turn, represent the public’s voice in the government. People can then give money to their desired candidate to hopefully get them elected and have their opinions represented in the end.
Campaign finance reform opponents say that “meddling with how people can financially support candidates, and how much money candidates can receive, limits the speech of both supports and candidates. Because voters won’t elect a politician they've never heard of, politicians need to advertise. Given this, candidates rely on money to buy communication” (McGrath 1).
Money can be seen as a facilitator and medium for speech. It is not literally speech, but “if the government regulates it because it is being used to enable free speech it necessarily raises a First Amendment issue” (Levi 1). Imagine being allowed to speak freely but denied the right to use your own money to buy a megaphone so that your thoughts can be more clearly heard.
Smith, Bradley. "Is Money Speech?" YouTube. Learn Liberty, 24 Sept. 2012.