I have a question about money = speech

[Lithium381]

This is kind of an interesting thought. If campaign finance laws restrict a corporations ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads (i.e. restricting their free speech), why can't tax laws be considered to do the same thing? Or is this a matter of one part of the constitution trumping the other?

this is more a matter of they can force you to buy what they want you to buy against your will....well, or fine you double the amount they think it's worth, your call....

 

[Fern]

If money is speech and the first amendment clearly states.



that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, wouldn't taxation be against the law since Congress created those tax laws? Taxation is a form of limiting what I can spend my money on, kind of like telling me what I can or can't say(banning words). Does this make sense to anyone else or am I just being silly?

btw my goal isn't to demonize taxation, I'm curious if they legitimately screwed the pooch on this.

Taxation is specifically allowed Congress in the Constitution.

If the Constitution authorizes it, it cannot be illegal.

US Constitution

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises....

Fern

 

[bfdd]

Fern, but the constitution also says they cannot make law that infringes on speech and the justices decided that money is speech so this is kind of my point. Did they screw the pooch? If money is speech, then congress cannot tax us because that'd be infringing on our ability to exercise our free speech, but congress clearly has the ability to create tax law.

 

[Fern]

Fern, but the constitution also says they cannot make law that infringes on speech and the justices decided that money is speech so this is kind of my point. Did they screw the pooch? If money is speech, then congress cannot tax us because that'd be infringing on our ability to exercise our free speech, but congress clearly has the ability to create tax law.

Wolfe or an attorney would be better to address this. You are essentially raising the question of how do you reconcile two laws that seemingly contradict one another. This is not a new or unique situation/question.

In some situations the later law is given more weight. That's not the case here, both provisions were in the initial Constitution, neither being a later amendment.

IIRC, to resolve the question you try to read them as though they were intended to function in harmony. I.e., your after-tax dollars are 'Freedom of Speech'.

(I think Hayabusa Rider's answer is a good one.)

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Hyabusa answered the question already on page 1. The SCOTUS did not rule that money=speech. They ruled that a law that says a corporation can't spend money to create speech is unconstitutional. Taxation is entirely irrelevant to that concept. I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

 

[JSt0rm]

Hyabusa answered the question already on page 1. The SCOTUS did not rule that money=speech. They ruled that a law that says a corporation can't spend money to create speech is unconstitutional. Taxation is entirely irrelevant to that concept. I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

Normal thinking humans didn't even need that.

 

[Rainsford]

"Money is speech" is simply bumper sticker shorthand for something that I'm sure appropriate legal decisions went into in much greater detail. If they had meant that money is literally speech in all circumstances, I suspect they would have said as much...I don't think lawyers and judges get paid more for using more words.

Basically, there is a reason you have to go to school for an extra 3 years to be a lawyer, and there is a reason legal decisions aren't written on cocktail napkins.

 

[bfdd]

Hyabusa answered the question already on page 1. The SCOTUS did not rule that money=speech. They ruled that a law that says a corporation can't spend money to create speech is unconstitutional. Taxation is entirely irrelevant to that concept. I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly.

Seriously... What about Buckley vs Valeo? Back in 1975 is when they had the argument over money = speech.

 

[Rainsford]

Seriously... What about Buckley vs Valeo? Back in 1975 is when they had the argument over money = speech.

That's not what the decision was about. They ruled that giving money to influence elections is a form of protected free speech. They did not rule that money = speech. If they had meant the latter, they would have SAID that. They said something much more specific.

 

[bfdd]

That's not what the decision was about. They ruled that giving money to influence elections is a form of protected free speech. They did not rule that money = speech. If they had meant the latter, they would have SAID that. They said something much more specific.

Yes, that money equals speech. A Justice, Justice John Stevens, who disagrees with it is quoted as saying "Money is property. It is not speech." Because the court upholds the view that money = speech. Seriously this isn't some new concept and I didn't come in here simply because I read something about Citizens United vs FEC.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, that money equals speech. A Justice, Justice John Stevens, who disagrees with it is quoted as saying "Money is property. It is not speech." Because the court upholds the view that money = speech. Seriously this isn't some new concept and I didn't come in here simply because I read something about Citizens United vs FEC.

You aren't really going to make me go looking through all these cases, are you? The position that is being opposed by the statement "money is property. it is not speech" is not "money=speech." It is that limiting campaign contributions and other monies spent to create political speech places a burden on free speech. It's what the majority opinion in Buckley v. Valeo says.

Here is a quote from the majority opinion in Buckley v. Valeo:

A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because **635 virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.

The expenditure limitations contained in the Act represent substantial rather than merely theoretical restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech. The $1,000 ceiling on spending “relative to a clearly identified candidate,” 18 U.S.C. s 608(e)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), would appear to exclude all citizens and groups except candidates, political parties, and the institutional press FN19 from any significant use of the most *20 effective modes of communication.FN20 Although the Act's limitations on expenditures by campaign organizations and political parties provide substantially greater room for discussion and debate, they would have required restrictions in the scope of a number of past congressional and Presidential campaigns FN21 and would operate to constrain campaigning by candidates who raise sums in excess of the spending ceiling.

That is not money=speech. It's far more specific than that. I'm sorry if you don't understand it that way.

OK are we now finally done here?

- wolf

 

[Corn]

4th grade civics class here we come.

When did you graduate 3rd grade?

 

[Corn]

OK are we now finally done here?

- wolf

Don't count your chickens........

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, that money equals speech. A Justice, Justice John Stevens, who disagrees with it is quoted as saying "Money is property. It is not speech." Because the court upholds the view that money = speech. Seriously this isn't some new concept and I didn't come in here simply because I read something about Citizens United vs FEC.

The argument isn't that money is always speech, it is that it is sometimes speech. Similarly a can of paint is not always speech, but when the paint is used to make a protest sign it might be.

Stevens was saying that it was never speech, and I happen to agree with him. Regardless though, you are making Citizens United to be something that it wasn't.

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, that money equals speech. A Justice, Justice John Stevens, who disagrees with it is quoted as saying "Money is property. It is not speech." Because the court upholds the view that money = speech. Seriously this isn't some new concept and I didn't come in here simply because I read something about Citizens United vs FEC.

It might not be a new concept, but people believing some over simplified version of a legal decision for years doesn't make it any more accurate.

Like I said, if they had meant that money is EXACTLY the same as speech all the time, they probably would have said that. They did not.

 

[JSt0rm]

When did you graduate 3rd grade?

Sometime last century. When was the last time you took a English lesson?