Money is speech. The Supreme ruled that giving money to candidates or parties is unconstitutional because it gives a bigger voice to wealthier citizens. In 2014 the ruling of the McCutcheon v FEC reversed this. They ruled that limiting how much an individual can spend on a candidate is unconstitutional because money is speech. Spending money is the same thing as me saying I support them. I believe money is speech because it is a way to get your point across. The ruling stated that corporations cannot spend their money directly to the candidate, but are welcome to play/show their ads at any time including leading up to the election. Limiting the amount of money I can spend is limiting my voice. If I tell my friend to vote for a candidate it won’t guarantee that they vote for them, but I can tell them to because of free speech. Money is the same, I can pay money for signs but it doesn’t guarantee that it makes a difference so it constitutional as well.
Other people believe that this ruins democracy. It sways candidates to make these wealthy companies/people happy because they are helping them but that is not true. When it comes to the election these wealthy people’s vote count for the same as the middle class.
Works Cited:
“Mccutcheon V. FEC | Brennan Center For Justice. ” Brennan Center.Org, 2019, https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/mccutcheon-v-fec.
Jacobs, Jeremy P. “The Citizens United Ruling.” Politics, 01 Mar 2010, pp. 10. Sirs issues researcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265870181?accountid=9361
Wrighton, J. Mark. Political Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science). Spring2007, Vol. 122 Issue 1, p144-146. 3p. DOI: 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2007.tb01586.x. , Database: MasterFILE Complete
Speak1st 