Originally Posted by Sini

I recommend you look into arguments in Citizens United case - they successfully used argument that political donations is type of expression, limiting these would limit freedom of speech.

That goes back to definition of freedom of speech.


It goes back to Buckley v Valeo, which I also disagree with. Limits on speech are sometimes necessary to protect speech. For example if you go to your city council to provide testimony on an issue, your time will be limited - this is because the time of the council is also limited, and reasonable time needs to be provided to all comers. This limitation is a protection of your right to speak. If another system applied, such as if the time were instead auctioned off, your speech would even more limited based on your access to wealth. This is the situation we now face ourselves in because of the decisions in Buckley and Citizens. In the interest of protecting campaigns from being corrupted by the influence of money, I believe expenditures on behalf of a campaign should be extremely limited, regardless of source, and perhaps fully and equally funded by a general pool from tax revenue.

My argument is at best tangential to corporate personhood and demonstrates the overreach of Citizens. I would be ecstatic "artificially" exclude money and work from there.

[Linked Image]