Say Congress passed a law that nobody is allowed to spend money to criticize any member of Congress.

[Nye Bevan]

So everyone would still be allowed to make speeches on street corners criticizing Congressmen, to complain about Congressmen at town hall meetings and to send emails to newspapers criticizing Congressmen.

But nobody would be allowed to spend money renting billboards or paying for TV or newspaper ads, or sending direct mailings, to criticize any member of Congress.

Should such a law be constitutional or should it be struck down by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment?

3 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	This law would be constitutional and should not be struck down. Money is not speech, after all.
	0 (0%)
	This law would be unconstitutional and should be struck down in court as a violation of the First Amendment.
	3 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Orrex]

1. .

Do you see no Constitutional distinction between political speech by individuals in the public square and money spent by corporations upon advertisements?

[brooklynite]

2. We're talking about a national Government...

How is your speaking up about tax policy on a street corner in Boise Idaho going to influence anyone in Chicago?

[Nye Bevan]

4. Good point.

Perhaps in a country where it is very difficult to make one's voice heard without spending money, the statement that "money is not speech" is an oversimplification.

[Prometheus_unbound]

3. I voted for unconstitutional

The main issues I have with money spent by corporations on political campaigns are not about voicing corporate propaganda (they are free to do so). My issues are:

1) Hogging the airwaves and driving up the cost of political campaigns restricts the number of potential runners, since, in practice, no independent candidate can afford a political campaign or make his voice heard, unless he has Ross Perot's money.

2) The contributions and support are not given free of charge. They come with the catch that the supported politician must push for corporate interests, often in ways that are very harmful to society at large (legal and fiscal privileges, favourable regulation, pork, etc).
This is de-facto corruption, even though the actions, by themselves, are legal.

Personally, I believe that guaranteeing fair access to mass media for all candidates (through PSAs or what have you) would be a more effective way to counter these problems than an unconstitutional measure such as the op is proposing.