[EL] Money as speech

[Lowenstein, Daniel]

   No person who understands the English language would contend that money is speech.  If you try using those two words as synonyms you will find you are speaking gibberish.

    Just as money is not speech, neither is it food.  But if you prevent me from spending any money on food, I shall expect to get very hungry.

     To refer to the spending of money on electioneering as volume and equate it to a sound system is to employ a metaphor--in this case a metaphor that obscures far more than it illuminates.

      If your metaphor were a sound basis for analysis, the government would be permitted to prevent spending of money for all speech activity.  It could prohibit universities from charging tuition and from paying its faculty and staff; it could prohibit the spending of money to buy or publish newspapers and all other forms of communication; it could prohibit contributing money to a church or other religious association as well as the spending of money by religious associations for their operations.  Because it could do these and many other things generally, it could also do them selectively: no spending for pro-Democratic newspapers; for pro-market economics courses; for Roman Catholic religious practice.

       Because your argument proves so absurdly too much, it is no help.  There are no short cuts through the painfully difficult problems posed by the raising and spending money on electioneering.

             Best,

             Daniel H. Lowenstein
             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
             UCLA Law School
             405 Hilgard
             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
             310-825-5148


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of demesqnyc at aol.com [demesqnyc at aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:56 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Money as speech

I have what is probably a simple and simple minded question for the assembled delegation: Why is money speech?  It seems to me money is not speech, it is volume.  We would not allow the person with the largest sound system to drown out all others, we would regulate the volume at which they communicate.

Why is money different.  It does not convey any message in and of itself, it simply amplifies the speech you choose to make.  It is not only acceptable, but expected, that we will not allow unlimited noise, on our streets or in our debates, why is money more sacrosanct than the maximum ability of my vocal cords and diaphragm?

Howard Leib