Freedom of Speech: Should We Be Spending Money to Transmit Messages?

Freedom of speech is defined by the first amendment as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

However, the most significant part of this decision was the precedent set that day, labeling money as an expression of speech, a right protected by the first amendment in the bill of rights.

In the United States of America, the First Amendment of the Constitution assures individuals such civil liberties as the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Freedom of speech preserves not only an individual’s right to vocally express themselves unabridged, it also allows them the right to burn the American flag, engage in silent protest, and more recently (2016), get a tattoo. In some respects, freedom of speech has come to mean the freedom of communication.

The issue begins with campaigning. A candidate needs money to run a campaign—especially in congressional and presidential elections, which is why the problem is (thankfully) mostly confined to campaigns at the national level. This money needs to come from somewhere, obviously, but the only way to get the money necessary for television ads, billboards, and the like, is to convince absurdly wealthy people and corporate entities to donate it. Naturally, these people will not donate their millions without incentive, which is where the danger lies. Candidates make promises concerning future policies in an effort to court donors, and,

I agree that, deep down, there is something wrong with the way in which campaigns in the United States are financed. There is little doubt that large corporations and/or special interest groups have a “quid pro quo” expectation attached to the outlay of large sums of money (an expectation of a direct exchange of campaign contributions for favorable government treatment).

There are many elements of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to address. The area of the Freedom of Speech applies to every aspect of our daily lives. An examination of this area shows us why there are protected and unprotected areas of speech: speeches and actions that have been debated throughout our nation’s history and why they are important and have such an impact on our individual lives and social activities today.

Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business. I think it is terrible that we allow any money or benefits to change hands at all. If we had public funding of elections, and gave everyone the same amount of money to spend on television and advertising, it would make the election much more about ideas than who spends the most

Many times the American people have asked themselves why certain topics take precedent over other topics that may seem worthy of attention. The common speculation is that money from special interest groups have infiltrated re-election campaigns are the ones who really have the power and last say on what occurs in government. Many people have campaigned in order to pass a reform that would disclose how a political campaign is funded or set a limitation on how much can be donated to a specific campaign. Some people may argue that doing so may infringe on the rights of voters and their decision on how much to donate or that it prevents individuals from expressing their opinions on political issues, but by not having rules in place on what can

majority plays only a small role in it. A few would argue that placing a limit on how

The Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which

Browne v. City of Grand Junction, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 1288 (D. Colo. 2015). Conversely, municipalities may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech as long as the regulation is content-neutral. Id. A regulation is content-neutral if it is justified without reference to the regulated speech. Id. Such restrictions are subject to intermediate scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Doucette v. City of Santa Monica, 955 F. Supp. 1192, 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Regulations that distinguish based only upon the manner in which speakers transmit their messages, and not upon the messages they carry are content-neutral. Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 645 (1994). Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to prohibit solicitation on the ground that it is unquestionably a particular form of speech that is disruptive of business. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 733 (1990). The inherent nature of solicitation itself is a content-neutral ground. Id. at 736. Moreover, a speech restriction applying impartially to all persons or organizations is content-neutral. Heffron v. Int 'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 642 (1981).

People search far and wide all the time to find the truth. According to Shana Lebowitz, “humans actually judge people psychologically based on their face, if they are able to trust another person” (P1). Americans in-particular have had an issue all throughout their country with both corruption and money flooding their political system ultimately preventing positive social change. The questions on campaign finance reform stems in two very different directions in political debate. One, is “Money Free Speech?" Two does it actually promote corruption like some political observers say and if so can it be stopped? Politian’s are first and foremost supposed to be a servant to the people regardless of their background, not to business and or themselves.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not only protect just written and spoken rules but also any action that intends to relay or display a message (Hall, 2015). Of the three scenarios given, the flag burning scenario has established case law in Texas v Gregory

The United States Constitution to the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression which prohibits the congress to restrict the press to speak what they like or dislike to public. Freedom of speech allows the individual to express themselves as they please without the government getting involved. The only clause as to the government can get involved is if they provide substantial justification for interfering in the right of freedom of speech if peace or causes