Quote Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I was interested in getting answers to the many questions I posed in response to your extended retort. I thought that was what this forum was about.



Curious on both fronts. First, as Chief Justice Roberts' opinion notes, the First Amendment has never, in 216 years of American jurisprudence, been interpreted literally. That is why the law respects, for instance, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on certain types of speech. If the First Amendment was in any sense absolute, one could not be punished for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

I'm not sure how the Framers have "particularly" intended the First Amendment to apply to political speech, since the First Amendment itself makes no mention of any such speech. Of course, the First Amendment has been interpreted by Courts to be particularly vigilant in the protection of political expression. But at no point in American history has the First Amendment ever been understood to wholly prohibit the government from placing limitations on political expression that are narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interests. The balance tilts heavily against proscription, but there is undoubtedly some room for legislation.



Again, this strikes me as the paradox in your argument. You contend that money is the "ultimate form of political expression," yet suggest in the next breath argue that money does not sway campaigns during an election. Which is it? I can't believe that the "ultimate form of political expression" would ever be expression that, in your estimation, should have no real effect on a campaign. If contributions are a greater form of political expression than votes -- clearly, an inference from your argument -- then I don't get why campaigns wouldn't be swayed more by contributions.

Thus, while Bill Gates has as many votes as you have, he has a far greater capacity to engage in the "ultimate form of political expression" than you do. Why should anyone's right to exercise a form of political expression be dependent upon his socio-economic status? How does that strike any sort of balance between First Amendment rights and Equal Protection?
My point is, there are a lot more people of modest, and below, means than there are rich people.

If we, as a society, don't want money to be so influential -- we should elect politicians that won't be swayed by the dollars. Let's recognize a politicians campaign or a political ad may be more appealing not because of the message but because of all the money that was poured into making the message appealing.

I blame the voters not the money. We complain about the corrupt politicians in Washington and yet, we continue to vote them back into office. Why?

And, you keep throwing the "the 'ultimate form of political expression'" back in my face. Even though, grammarically incorrect and paradoxical, I actually said "an ultimate form of political expression." I didn't intend to convey the idea that money was THE highest form of political expression but, I can see how you took it that way.

So, to clarify, voting is the highest form of political expression. How I spend my time, talent, and treasure -- on political matters -- is important, as well; and, if deemed to be a form of speech, should not be abridged by law.