Here's my idea:

[Kyle]

People always told me "Money Talks!"

I am kinda hard of hearing though....

 

[stgislander]

Of course it is.



Money is not speech; money is a direct action. I'm not even sure how you came up with this idea. It's like you're insisting that a dog is a coffee mug and I don't really know how to proceed with this discussion.

Fortunately or unfortunately, SCOTUS said money is speech. Until they change their mind.

 

[This_person]

Of course it is.



Money is not speech; money is a direct action. I'm not even sure how you came up with this idea. It's like you're insisting that a dog is a coffee mug and I don't really know how to proceed with this discussion.

So, you are fine with them paying, and speaking, just not who they pay?

What I mean is, if Bob from Kentucky wants to buy an ad on your website to say, "Steny sucks", you're ok with that. But, if Jill from West Virginia wants to give Steny money to buy an ad on your website to say, "Steny doesn't suck, Bob from Kentucky does", you'd be against that because she gave the money to Steny, not you directly?

 

[vraiblonde]

Fortunately or unfortunately, SCOTUS said money is speech. Until they change their mind.

Well, they're wrong. Buying a politician isn't free speech, in fact it's the opposite because it's rich fatcats taking our elections away from us and the average American can't compete with that. Elections are supposed to be for all of us, not just the elite.

We only think it's okay because the grifter politicians have made it an accepted practice. But we also accepted the fact that our tax dollars were funding abortion mills, and that just got turned on its head. We accepted that people from foreign countries could just come over here and get free education and health care, and we see where that's going.

So there's hope.

 

[Grumpy]

It's reasonable to consider money to be a form of speech.

I think you mistook the meaning of 'money talks' or you are slowly being assimilated by your liberal friends. rays:

 

[vraiblonde]

I think you mistook the meaning of 'money talks' or you are slowly being assimilated by your liberal friends. rays:

I often think it's a case of "garbage in, garbage out." Like when someone insists that Trump is a racist - that's not based on any factual evidence, it's just a product of repetitive marketing.

It's doubly hilarious when someone barfs up fantasy talking points, then insists that advertising doesn't work on them.

 

[This_person]

I think you mistook the meaning of 'money talks' or you are slowly being assimilated by your liberal friends. rays:

No, but money IS a part of speech. This is just common sense - I can donate time, talent, or money. If I like a candidate, I can support that candidate by volunteering to do work (time and/or talent), or I can pay to have that candidate get his/her ideas out (money). All of those things are a form of speaking to my support of the candidate.

This has been adjudicated and accepted for many decades.

When someone wants to say that money doesn't talk, then why would we be concerned if someone buys a politician - the money wouldn't say anything to the politician, because money DOESN'T talk. Of course money talks - whether it is to convince a politician to vote a given way or convince a citizen to vote a certain way.

The question is, who is responsible for doing an action - the person doing the action, or the person paying for the action? A great way for a politician to not be bought is to take the money and do the thing the constituents want regardless. A great way for a voter to decide for whom to vote is to see all the ads, weigh all the issues and actions taken by the candidate, and make a choice for themselves.

If money decides (not talks), then we can just have popularity contests where dollars are used as votes instead of voters. We don't have that yet, so Vrai is wrong on this one.