If money really is speech, than can speech only be free to the extent that we don't have income inequality?
Edit: Honest question. Financing campaigns is a difficult and complicated question.
Edit: Honest question. Financing campaigns is a difficult and complicated question.
I don't think political spending should be considered an exercise of 1st amendment rights, but this argument doesn't make any sense.
One super-rich person requires another equally-as-rich person or enough poorer people to band together against said super-rich person. Said super-rich person also, at least in the case of the Koch Brothers, also has a vested interest in the topic at hand, whereas the equally-as-rich person or even the poorer people might not be as interested.
Technically I think the news should still have fair-play laws where they were required to give equal time to someone with an opposing view everytime they did an op-ed. I think the news should be more open and accessible--I think when it comes to president ads shouldn't even be allowed, it should ALL be based on debates and nothing else. Because politics shouldn't be manipulated by people with more money than another person..--but that's in an ideal world.