I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, as treating money as speech enables those with more money to exercise their speech more freely and exert tremendous influence over the way political candidates vote. This effectively means that candidates are no longer bound to represent the people of their states / countries, but bound to represent the interests of whatever group that contributes the most money to them. Yes, there should be a limit, although I would prefer to see the "money is speech" line of thinking shut down entirely.
Be the first to reply to this answer.