Originally Posted by patteeu
There is nothing simpler than letting people spend their own money as they see fit when it comes to political speech.
Then why do it anonymously? I get the whole "bribery is free speech" argument. I just don't agree with it. If one wants to exercise their free speech rights they have every right to do so without secretly donating millions to shadow organizations that work "indirectly" for political campaigns.
The epitomy of free speech is standing in the town square proclaiming one's beliefs. Anonymous dontations and free speech are not the same thing.
And since when are corporations people? They're not. So why do those who operate within a corporate entity get to double dip when it comes to free speech and donations? That person has the same rights the rest of us do as citizens. And they can give under the same limitations. Why then should they also get to hide behind the banner of a corporation and give tons more than we could ever give individually?
It tilts the playing field in favor of corporations. And disempowers the average American. That is painfully obvious. All Citizens United accomplished was to define money as speech. And those with the most money have the most speech. One bank account can drown out the voices of millions.