Whenever I hear of money being equated to speech and other political activity, I go back to the Medieval Church. Crusades were afoot, as the Church wanted to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims. But initial religious fervor only gathered so many troops — especially knights — for the task. So the Church lit on a great idea: a plenary indulgence for those who participated (see Pope Urban II and the Council of Clermont (1095)). Go off to the Crusades — thus performing a great and dangerous effort out of piety — and such a penitential act would mean the punishment (in Purgatory) for forgiven Earthly sins would be wiped clean. You'd have done your metaphysical time, as it were, performing community service.
This worked pretty well, but ultimately a certain unfairness became apparent. A person who was too old, or too ill, or too important, to go off to the Crusades was being robbed of the opportunity for an indulgence of this sort. Eventually the Church solved this problem, too, with a very modern-sounding idea: money is religious action.
Thus, rather than going off to a Crusade, you could accrue the benefit if you paid for someone else to go on your behalf. (I don't recall if it counted for the Crusader, too.) After all, it was a similar sacrifice and exertion, "from each according to his abilities," and so should be similarly respected and rewarded.
Of course, that was all well and good for those wealthy enough to be able to afford to send a whole Crusader off to the wars, but for those of more limited means — well, ultimately, there were opportunities to pay for a "share" of a Crusader: contribute to the cause, and you'd get, if not a plenary indulgence than a partial one, maybe a few hundred years knocked off your time in Purgatory (or off the time of a deceased loved one). It was a win-win for everyone …
… until the system (inevitably) spiraled out of control, and various church officials were offering partial indulgences (or even outright forgiveness of sins) for monetary contributions for just about anything (often money that simply went into the pocket of the wandering professional "pardoner" proclaiming such great bargains). And even when official, the causes for which indulgences were granted became more and more venal …
… until, ultimately, the abuses of indulgence-monger Johann Tetzel, who was drumming up money for the rebuilding of St Peter's Basilica in Rome under Pope Leo X (using, it was said, the catchy jingle, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs"), led to an obscure German cleric named Martin Luther to post 95 Theses objecting to the overall practice. And the rest was history.
And all because someone decided that money could be consideredthe same as religious action.
And that's what I think about someone drawing an equivalence between money and political speech/action. I can understand the logic of it, but it serves as the slipperiest of slopes into those with more money having more "speech," then to money simply buying political power in a way antithetical to the principles of men who enshrined freedom of speech as a protection against the growth and abuse of power.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
The idea that money = political speech does open up a number of questions such as why is bribery bad or why can't I hire a prostitute as an expression of my sexuality?
Law professor tells senators: If money is speech, outlawing prostitution is unconstitutional
The decision was later followed by similar rulings in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, further eroding limits on political spending and contributions. The Supreme Court rulings have led to an unprecedented amount of money being spent to influence the outcome of elections.
