It is a valid point. I would take exception to some of Kyle's phrasing.
The argument is this: If I can talk you in to doing something, or express an opinion on something, it is equally valid if I say it, write it, or use money to express it.
Therefore, if I can "woo" a girl into bed, buy her candy/flower/jewelry/diner/drinks to get her to bed, then it follows that I can just hand her the money to achieve the same goal and objective (QED Prostitution is a date where the girl rather than a third party get the money).
Now the same argument goes down the line -- I can give the money to a third party -- a PAC or something -- therefore I can give it directly to the beneficiary of that third party function, with the same strings attached, or same objective in mind.
Money is speech and there is no rational justification to have a third party relay the message in some instances and not in others. As with any law, the burden is on the legislature to establish an overwhelming social benefit in restricting speech (transfer of finances). HUM! Interesting idea -- if two parties are forbidden contact by the court, no money transfer (speech) is allowed. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling also forbids Alimony and child support where a protection or, or no contact order, exists.
Effectively, the child support orders and alimony are court ordered speech of a specific type and nature – equivalent to ordering someone to proclaim the validity of, and support for, an enemy government.
It will be fun to see how this plays out …
No comments:
Post a Comment