Campaign Finance – Money does not equal speech. Period.
Has the Supreme Court ever said that money equals speech? Or is that just the spin that those of you oppose
Buckley v. Valeo and
Citizens United v. FEC feel like putting on those decisions?
If Congress were to pass a law that restricts the amount of money that journalists are allowed to spend on their efforts at investigative journalism, wouldn't that violate the principle of the Freedom of the Press? If Congress were to pass a law that restricts the amount of money that church congregations can spend on constructing chapels, wouldn't that violate the principle of the Free Exercise of Religion? The Court would not have to say "Money equals journalism," or "Money equals religion" in order to arrive at conclusions that those freedoms had been abridged.
Nonetheless, even though I do not disapprove of how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in cases such as
Buckley v. Valeo and
Citizens United v. FEC, I do support the adoption of a constitutional amendment that says that, notwithstanding the First Amendment, any level of government in the United States may adopt campaign finance reform measures that limit the expenditure of money on political campaigns.
And the law that I think is the worst -- or maybe it's more accurate to describe it as a doctrine than a law -- is the continued existence of "substantive due process." That doctrine takes the phrase that goes:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of lawAnd the judges read it as if also says:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due law."Substantive due process" has gotta wither on the vine and die. It's just gotta.
