Is there any sense in which campaign contributions should be viewed as a legitimate form of political expression?
Miller: None. The notion that money equals speech is nonsensical. Since money is not evenly distributed, to have money be the determining factor of whose voice gets heard and how loud it gets heard is counter to our very basic democratic principles. We are not talking about free speech, we are talking about paid speech; and those who have more money get more paid speech. There are other constitutional principles at work here, and the very notion that money should equal speech in the political arena is absolutely contrary to the founding principles of this nation. MM: When you step back and look at the big picture of campaign results, how do contributions correlate with win-loss records of candidates? Miller: The candidate who spends the most wins nine out of ten times in congressional elections. In presidential elections, the candidate who has raised the most money by January 1 of the election year has always won his party’s nomination. Money is the critical factor. A candidate who cou
Related Questions
- Can a caucus campaign committee make contributions to organizations such as the young woman’s political organization or the young collegiate political organization?
- Is the ACLU justified in claiming that limits on political campaign contributions and expenditures compromise free speech?
- Is there any sense in which campaign contributions should be viewed as a legitimate form of political expression?
