5 ms·
I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizati
by delecti 9d ago
I think the first amendment quite reasonably protects people making donations to political causes. The "speech" protections aren't limited to literal vocalizations, but also applause, writing, displaying signs, etc. And it also protects assembly, and donating to a political organization is a reasonable part of joining or supporting a cause. It does not have to protect corporations making those same donations; congress could remove donations from the list of powers granted to a corporation, and there's an effort in some states to do just that (it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana).
As for the second point, congress has that power, but not an obligation to do so. Congress could pass a law aimed at ensuring access to clean water, but not every law congress could pass has been passed. If congress passed such a law, a plain reading of that sentence would support the law being constitutional.
- rbanffy 9d ago> it'll be on the ballot this fall in Montana There are reasons to be optimistic.
- rassimmoc 9d agoNot from US and not a lawyer, but for me it makes sense for 'speech' to include writing, signs, etc... But not money. I think it should only include what every person has same of as every other person. We all can communicate, write, display signs,.... But not everyone can donate millions/billions
- db48x 9d agoTake heart in the fact that spending more money does not guarantee a win. The Harris campaign spent over a billion dollars in 2024 and she lost badly. She spent more than 2.5× as much as Trump.