[EL] Citizens United as precedent

[Jon Roland]

The logic is very simple. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make
no law", and those who don't like the way voters can be influenced by
the expenditure of money for marketing efforts to persuade them keep
trying to read it as saying "no law except ...". But there is no
"except", and no compelling government interest to intervene in efforts
to persuade, no matter who is trying to persuade, for what purpose, or
to what effect. That includes foreigners.

If the money were used to buy votes, or intimidate, or rig election
counts, or buy officials or their votes, that would be another matter,
but if you want to do something about buying votes start with the
promises of politicians to voters.

Voters are responsible to discriminate among attempts to persuade them,
and if they choose to allow themselves to be persuaded by expenditures
of money, then they are voting for that as well. That is their right and
their decision, and it no business of well-intentioned busybodies to
protect them from their own foolishness.

The essence of tyranny is meddling in people's lives instead of letting
them make their own mistakes and learning, or not, from the
consequences. It is treating citizens as though they were children. They
are not, and treating them as children won't get them to stop behaving
like children. People sometimes have to suffer to grow wiser.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------