The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Re: Speech Is Not Money

Quin, not even the 1970s Supreme Court agreed with your apparently sweeping dismissal of money's connection with speech. See 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 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. 424 U.S. at 19.

Those who still believe that BCRA abridges free speech will likely keep objecting. You should raise your favorite issues too -- even those that often seem like lost causes, such as abortion and entitlements. That is the great thing about a (generally) robust freedom of speech.

topics:
Television, Entitlements, Abortion, Supreme Court

About the Author

David Holman is a reporter for The American Spectator.

http://spectator.org/blog/2007/04/09/re-speech-is-not-money

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT