Money IS Speech, Its Official!

Anyone who truly thinks money is free speech doesn't understand the idea of equality. Everyone's vote is supposed to be the same, everyone's power in our democracy when it comes to influencing it is supposed to be the same. By making money equal to speech you only make it easier for the top to get what they want while keeping anyone who disagrees with them from getting that same chance. A guy like me who's poor has no power compared to someone with millions upon millions of dollars they can throw at politicians to get what they want. You can't possibly think that's equality, fair, or in any way right.

Many things have ruined this country, but letting people basically buy our politicians with substantial amounts of money has damaged this country far more than anything else.

If you want to try fixing this at all, you should head over to Wolf-Pac and look into it. The goal of Wolf-Pac is getting money out of politics, passing a 28th Amendment to our constitution which would take the money out of the equation.

The United States of America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. How can you give input when you don't even know how we operate?

Everyone's vote is not the same. Our Elected official's votes are.

So far as I understood the country itself was a bit of both.

A Republic being...


We elect them and they use the power, but in the end they are chosen by us so it's still our power, they are simply our representatives in using said power, or at least, they are supposed to be.

A Democracy being...


Which is what the US is supposed to be, a government where we the people elect people whom of which have supreme power, thus they are our elected agents who are ascertained via our electoral system.

Am I wrong? I mean, my entire life I have been told the US is a Democracy, even if I've heard it referred to as a Republic many times it seems to me we're either a Democracy or a bit of both.

I dont know what to make of this you say the silliest thing. Most people will know money buys you "speech" this doesnt mean they dont know what equality is it does mean though that they dont have their head in the clouds.

A lot of money and a high position can give you a lot of power these days and sone will abuse that some dont. Take for example taxes over here in the UK the lowest earning people are hit by the highest amount of tax there is while the highest earners have one of the lowest. Not fair at all right? but the government we have in atm is full of all the rich toffs that want to make the rich richer and keep the poor poor. Now obviously we didnt vote this in nor did many know till it was too late it was the rich idiots at the top with the power put it through. This was at a time when the economy was starting to recover slowly and they wanted to preserve their way of life. This new tax stuck us back into a recession as the vast amount of the poor had to cut spending.

It wouldnt surprise me if this 28th amendment gets rejected because of the rich people at the top.

The thing is even if we know money has influence and can take away that equality we are supposed to have, we are making it even easier to abuse it and do just that. People use defenses such as saying that it's freedom of speech, corporations are people, but it's all a bunch of excuses in the end which only make the rich and wealthy even more powerful.

What is a government supposed to do when there's inequality between it's people, especially when it comes to something as important as this? It's supposed to try to put things in place to even things out as best it can, in this case making money a non-issue by removing it from politics as much as possible to prevent the abuse would be a solution. What it's not supposed to do is drive a wedge in the gap and pry it as far apart as possible by doing something like making it basically legal to bribe politicians through campaign contributions and then continuously make it even easier to do.

The point wasn't that money has influence, but that we're making it legal to let that money influence our government as much as possible. The US suffers from horrible income inequality, blame it on what you will but when it comes down to it the problem will always root back to the fact that the government at this point is watching out more for corporations than it's citizens. If that isn't changed and the government basically continues to work for these corporations then everyone else will simply continue to suffer as a result.

As for the Amendment being shut down by the rich and wealthy, I have no doubt they'll try and possibly even succeed at stopping it in the end, I mean we're only giving them the tools to do as they wish at this point. If they do though it will simply mean this country continues to move forward in it's failure to stop it's core issues that drive it down a path that continues to ruin what was once great.

Are we still pretending that Obama ran two billion dollar + campaigns funded by individual 100 dollar donations from poor and middle class families? Sorry I can't even fake outrage with the rest of you over this. Everything you think you are preventing with arbitrary limits is already happening anyway.

We have laws that criminalize people raping and murdering, but rape and murder remain things that happen. Ergo, the best solution is just to repeal the laws so we don't feel as bad when someone gets raped and murdered.

Yes I am saying rape and murder should be legal.

I normally wouldn't feel the need to point out that I was using the method called analogy, but I guess I'll have to make an exception for the little bus:

I was using an analogy to demonstrate why your argument is insupportable.

Pretending Obama didn't get money from the same issue is stupid, but so to is letting it continue. He got money from the same issue and that's why nothing has gotten better through his presidency when it comes to money in politics or really income inequality from what I know. It's getting worse as time goes by and he's not helping.

No again it was you making a ridiculous "camparison." OH I SAID IT

Besides haven't Prochoice abortion supporters declared making the legalize murder comparison invalid?

eh; people can do what they want with their own money

Well to some people they are, since they don't get punished for it.

You're advocating for a maximum volume anyone should be able to shout. Nothing free about that at all.

If it means the vocal minorities are not the loudest, then I'm all for it.

Not really... some people may get away with it but it's still not legal by any means...

Why limit individual contributions at all then?

Whats the point in making something illegal if every time someone does it you just say, don't do it again.

If you don't want them to be the loudest, stop giving them money to speak with...

That doesn't even come close to happening.

the united states is a constitutional republic our form of government is a democracy

Ask the govt.; I wouldn't give a ***

I'm advocating for all voices to be heard equally when it comes to who leads our country or how the country goes about things rather than allowing the rich and wealthy to manipulate the system so that the country is making things better for them while the majority of the country continues to go down the drain constantly.

If you want to equate money to a voice, let me know when on a whim the majority of people can start to spend millions of dollars on the politicians they want in office, then maybe you have a point. Amassing a fortune is no easy thing and to expect people to do so simply so their voice can be heard over the sound of the money rich are throwing at the politicians is insane and stupid on so many levels. At the same time most people can yell, even if the voice would become indistinguishable it would be a loud voice all the same, but right now rather than most people having voices only a few do. Those few with the voices have a ton of money and a ton of power even before the ability to spend money on politicians like this, by doing this we only give them more power and give up our own.

People can spend millions of dollars if they are able to acquire it. Quit whining that someone has greater means than yourself to speak their point. All it is is "I don't like his message, I must stop him from speaking."

No. People are allowed to spend millions of dollars anonymously through specific organizations. Indivduals are not allowed to spend beyond a set amount. Why limit one and set the other free?

Right so all you gotta do it x-y-z and you can do it? No one is barred via race orientation or creed?

I mean I can post up flyers around town calling abortion murder without putting my name on it can't i? What's the difference?

No, it's not that I must stop someone from speaking if I disagree, but rather that their voice should be no different than my own on any issue. A person's money should not be the deciding factor on how valid their opinion nor point is, if they have a message that people agree with and is superior to my own than being on equal grounds should not be an issue.

The only way a louder voice should be necessary is when someone's ideas fail them to the point they must resort to a yelling match and at which point they can afford the louder megaphone to yell overtop of me no matter the validity of my argument.

here is an example. two people apply for a job that pays $100k a year, both have equal education and training for the job, but one has more experience and a better work record. the one with out the experience and work record offers the company $10k for the job but the other Guy is broke. the Guy with the cash gets the job. do you think that is fair.

Right "their voice should not be louder than mine". Nothing free about that my friend.