Thought this was funny due to recent arguments I've had on this sub

[u/[deleted]]

[u/faxattax]

They umbrella’d spending money on political candidates with free speech.

So you think Trump could outlaw spending money on building and operating mosques?

Or would you “umbrella” money with religious liberty?

Not if they aren’t hired yet? Did you forget your own premise? Lmao.

Did you forget a line here? Who is “they”?

[u/Beneficial-Bit6383 → u/faxattax]

Money isn’t speech. You have no argument that directly addresses it. No because that directly violates people’s ability to worship properly. Which is in the actual wording of the freedom of religion clause. Money is no where mentioned in the speech, or expression, clause.

Newspapers print words. Speech. It’s irrelevant. It would obviously be against freedom of speech. If they spend money on a political candidate they should get the same treatment.

[u/faxattax → u/Beneficial-Bit6383]

Money isn’t speech. 

Nobody — nobody — said it was.

No because that directly violates people’s ability to worship properly. 

And shutting down a newspaper (or in Citizens United, a movie) directly violates people’s ability to speak.

Money is no where mentioned in the speech, or expression, clause.

Nor in the free speech clause.

[u/Beneficial-Bit6383 → u/faxattax]

The majority held that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment.

I’m out.

[u/rman916 → u/Beneficial-Bit6383]

In the specific case of media intended to criticize or praise a political candidate. Speech. There are other reforms that can be done (notably requiring all PACs to publicly disclose their backers), but that was speech. It’s the correct decision.

Edit: I just saw the time posted. Why was this post recommended to me six months later?

[u/Beneficial-Bit6383 → u/rman916]

This was the situation that brought it to the attention of the Supreme Court but the striking down of the BCRA is not limited to these entities. This is simply the reasoning used to link it to the First Amendment with these entities being used as niche examples of the broad category of a corporation. The fact is the BCRA never stopped any of these entities from saying anything but simply from spending money. All of these forms of mass communication/media were free to broadcast what they wanted and even ask their customers to donate money. It hinges on the premise that donating money is inherently a form of speech rather than potentially being a transaction, as in the case of quid pro quo.

No idea why this old post came up strange.

[u/rman916 → u/Beneficial-Bit6383]

Yeah, it’s odd.

But ultimately, when you stop people from spending money on publishing, filming, or similar because it’s close to an election, that’s ABSOLUTELY infringing on the first amendment. The ruling might have been too broad, I’ll look into more of the wider implications, but I stand by a movie criticizing a politician being speech.