I have heard many constitutional defenses of the existence of SuperPACs over the past couple of years. To some extent, on an ideological level, these arguments make sense if we're dealing with a purist view of free speech.
However, as has been set in legal precedent, there are realistic limits on free speech. Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten the president, you also should be limited in the ways you can use your money to stump for a candidate. There needs to be a clear line set to protect our democratic values from extreme monetary influence. Right now, that line doesn't even remotely exist, as this article shows.
I have heard many constitutional defenses of the existence of SuperPACs over the past couple of years. To some extent, on an ideological level, these arguments make sense if we're dealing with a purist view of free speech.
However, as has been set in legal precedent, there are realistic limits on free speech. Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater or threaten the president, you also should be limited in the ways you can use your money to stump for a candidate. There needs to be a clear line set to protect our democratic values from extreme monetary influence. Right now, that line doesn't even remotely exist, as this article shows.