Money is speech, my friend

Or that's the direction that the Supreme Court has increasingly taken over the years, striking down campaign spending and contribution laws based on the idea that, just like funding a knight to fight in the Crusades would net you a plenary indulgence to wipe away your sins, so, too, spending money — however much money you want — is a First Amendment free speech issue. 

The article also makes an interesting observation. The SCOTUS of the current era is unique in being made up entirely of jurists — lawyers and judges. In the past, at least some of the body was made up of respected former legislators and executives — former governors and even presidents.  That meant both a bit less legalism and judicial-philosophy-gone-wild as well as quite a bit more real-world governing experience — and, in this particular case, understanding of how campaign spending and donating actually works in the real world, vs. in the conceptual world of spending money being an expression of Free Speech.

Reshared post from +Isaiah R

“Really what’s at stake here is whether there’s just a few hundred or a few thousand people who can dominate the entire election process in the U.S.,” warned attorney Adam Lioz, a counsel for the progressive think tank Demos and co-author of the amicus brief filed by groups including the NAACP, the Sierra Club and the American Federation of Teachers. In a Monday interview, Lioz responded to arguments from Mitch McConnell, Antonin Scalia and First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams; discussed why neither side is satisfied with a 1976 precedent; and argued the legitimacy of America’s political process was under threat. A condensed version of our conversation follows."