April 9, 2007, 7:23 pm
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.