General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you support a constitutional amendment that says that "money is not speech"?
Such an amendment would give Congress the right to ban or regulate any kind of speech that involves spending money. This amendment would specify that the current First Amendment only applies to speech that does not involve spending money (for example, citizens making speeches in town squares).
11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes. I would support a constititutional amendment that says that "money is not speech". | |
8 (73%) |
|
No. I would not support a constitutional amendment that says that "money is not speech". | |
3 (27%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)this question somewhere like Yahoo Answers, and see what they say, too.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)You'll need to fine tune this even further.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And stricter rules on 501(c)4's.
If the rich want to pay for elections, then they can suffer a tax raise that provides a public money pool for candidates.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's a terrible construction: "any kind of speech that involves spending money." That could easily be interpreted as virtually any speech, really. I prefer something much more specifically-worded to exempt campaign contributions and the like from First Amendment protection.
No way in hell the Framers envisioned $ = speech. In fact, I don't doubt that a good few of them would have been happy to show the business end of a musket to anyone implementing institutionalized bribery.
roody
(10,849 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)without saying that money does not in some way equate to speech.
dballance
(5,756 posts)money is not speach and corps are not people.