Controlling the Money Means Controlling the Speech
… and this amendment will limit free speech. I understand the concern, but I believe that people gathered together in groups must have the same freedom, insofar as possible, as individuals. I don’t think creating greater government control is going to have the effect that people desire.
We keep creating government agencies, such as the FEC, to regulate various activities, and then we’re surprised when the people with the resources get control. It’s inevitable. It simply makes it much more complicated to run an election campaign, and much more dangerous to comment on government during an election, when such comment is most necessary.
The proper response to corporate money is for people to get together and use what they do have to communicate the message and get others involved in the process. I’m not a fan of the big corporations either, but I see the largest problem as the fact that they tend to control the regulatory agencies intended to regulate them. Once you have big money combined with the power of government, you are much worse off.
Related articles
- Occupy Boston Court Decision: Occupation is Not Speech (my.firedoglake.com)
- Assemble Freely, Lose Your Rights (forbes.com)
- Missouri: Apologies to Government Leaders … and Student Speech (ammori.org)
- Is Spending Speech? (aphilosopher.wordpress.com)
