Some more thoughts about what I put in the "Comment" section of yesterday's post, "Short Takes."
The question posed by Ryan Grim -- If financial contributions to candidates are protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech -- then how can you prosecute any politician for accepting bribes of money?
This was what Chief Justice John Roberts used in his McCutcheon opinion as the distinguishing factor, that is, quid pro quo bribery is the one instance that falls outside the right to free expression through campaign contributions.
But, Grim says, wait a minute. Doesn't even that come under the protection, if you equate monetary contributions as protected speech? Of course, Grim is coming from the other direction of thinking the decision is quite wrong.
The response from McCutcheon's lawyer to this very question from Grim is that money is not speech. It is the means of access to freedom of expression of your political views.
OK. But to me that's equally problematic. If we are saying that the money is only a means of access, then we are admitting that our democracy is not a level playing field -- because some people have far more access (money) to the policy-makers than others.
So I think the dilemma is still just as unsettled. Any ideas? Equal access here.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment