| Mr Khan said: The point is that there are quicker steps to take rather than radically reforming so many sectors of American governance, just radically reform one. There would, i imagine, be other ways to end-run around citizens united without having to mess with the first amendment (namely making requirements across the board, universal caps on donations at a fairly low level). Then there's the whole underlying question of whether speech is equal to money |
There is already a cap on donations. Citizens United changed none of that. Again, all the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United is that the government can't infringe on the free expression of a group of people just because it's "too close" to an election or primary. So it is pretty clearly 100% about speech, and not at all about money.
Actually, I'd say it's all about politics. The same people who think allowing Hillary: The Movie to be aired or advertised within 30 days of a primary undermines the republic seemed to have no trouble whatsoever with Fahrenheit 9/11 being advertised and released on DVD within 30 days of the 2004 presidential election.
