Celestial Interview

 

On Money (Speech) and Speech (Money)

 

 

On Money (Speech) and Speech (Money)

 

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

…

“The fact that speakers [ie donors] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.”

—    Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, 2010, Majority Opinion, CITIZENS UNITED v FEC

 

Some excerpts from an earlier draft of this opinion:

 

Not only is money “speech” and therefore donors are “speakers,” we conclude that corporations (ie “people”) can speak (“donate”) more money (“words?”) more loudly (“bigger money”) than almost anyone. The handing of money to a politician and the acceptance of that speech by the politician shall be called a “conversation.”

 

We further conclude that as concerns expenditures the word “bribe” is void of meaning, as long as it’s money. If it’s a fancy lamp or something that is not money it is allowable that it be called a bribe; therefore we find “fancy lamps” are not “speech.” Speech is mostly money, except for the odd occasion when words (of the non-legal tender variety) are assembled to convey a message. The message can be about money, and usually is.

 

Words printed on money are also speech. “In God We Trust” is not only speech printed on money, it’s religion to boot, so this is an exclusion to the Establishment Clause (1^st Base), and thus is a bridge (“speech”) over the Church/State wall (“porous”).

 

Of course, because money is speech (“time,” it should be noted, is also money)(haha) this does not mean speech without money is equal to money as legal tender, if you follow. You can’t go to a movie and just shout (speak) “I’VE PAID!” and expect to get in, or to get popcorn once you get in the theater. 

 

“Independent expenditures” donated to (spoken to) a politician do not mean that the politician will vote in a manner favored by the speaker (donor), and we conclude that if the politician does vote in such manner it is a “coincidence.” We reaffirm that people (corporations) should be able to have the freedom of speech guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights. Bring money if you want to be heard. Money talks.