Money Isn't Speech

The Supreme Court is obviously wrong in its McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that struck down "a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle."

It's wrong because money isn't speech.

You see, the machine through which Stephen Hawking speaks is free. It never cost anybody anything, and has no maintenance cost. It just magically appeared out of nowhere.

Indeed, I'm not saying there should be laws limiting the amount of money spent on speaking aids for the disabled, but if there's a compelling public interest to do so, why not?

"Money isn't speech."

Some people spend too much money going to see plays or comedians. That should be limited.

Indeed, "money isn't speech" is an obvious statement. Money also doesn't apply to other First Amendment provisions as well. I mean, it's clear...

"Money isn't  religion."

Indeed, perhaps the federal government should limit how much you give to your church and its affiliated institutions and charities, if there's a compelling public interest to do so.

"Money isn't the press."

Maybe the feds should also limit the amount of money you spend on books, magazines, and newspapers.

"Money isn't assembly."

And the federal government should be able to prevent you from spending money to rent a meeting space.

In conclusion, money obviously has nothing to do with the exercise of our freedoms. Any rational, well-intentioned person can see this, and if you disagree you're part of the oligarchy!