I was reading up online and I came across this statement in an argument about the public finance of campaigns (which I happen to think is a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't cover here):
My response: This is a troubling statement. I'll try to explain why... Speech is not just speech. It is a million little steps which translate one person's thoughts into corresponding thoughts in another person's head. Money is one path through which a person's ideas and intentions travel. For example, if I want to communicate in another language, I must have a translator. If one isn't available for free (i.e., doesn't volunteer), then I must hire one in order to express my message in that language. If the government limits my ability to give a translator money in order to speak for me, then they have limited my right and ability to speak. The same is true of other forms of expression which require a purchase, such as advertising. So ultimately, when I give my money to a group which I support, they are acting for me, and by proxy expressing my speech. I support Ron Paul, and he, quite literally, speaks for me in the Republican debates, and in his ads. If you legislate my right to act through him, you limit my very ability to express myself. IMO, liberals are taking the wrong approach by going for public financing. Other people, such as Lawrence Lessig, are doing a much better job of approaching the problem without potentially destroying our speech rights. The problem here is quid-pro-quo (whether it be votes or access), and as he cites, interesting work is being done to break that (quid-pro-quo) link, without limiting the speech that occurs through dollar-voting on the part of citizens.Money is not free speech.