Yaron Brook, head of The Ayn Rand Institute, answers this question
with specific reference to the restrictions on campaign financing.
Brook correctly identifies these restrictions as a profound threat to
free speech - and names one of its main authors, John McCain, as a key
culprit in creating them (with the McCain-Feingold Act).

He attacks the false charge that money can control the political
process.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/03/19/yaron-campaign-finance-oped-cx_ybr_0321yaron...

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Fred Weiss
papertig.com> wrote:

Surely more of a threat to expensive speech?

On Mar 22, 3:14 pm, Angus Rodgers bigfoot.com> wrote:

A threat to any speech is a threat to all speech.

Fred Weiss

"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:b647a399-587c-4da3-8cf1-68b08641657c@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Everybody has free speech, free vision, plus the other three (or more)
senses. |What we do with each of them has a consequence., both personal and
culturally wherever you are.

BOfL

On Mar 23, 9:00 am, "Brian Fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

Thats very good Brain, the only thing that can stop or violate the
natural freedoms of nature is an initiated, by man, un-natural
opposite force.

Which is why Rand coined the principled phrase, "the non-initiation of
force" as a moral code of conduct between peaceful human individuals,
the context being man's correct identity "the rational animal".

Man breaths his own air, he is responsible for his own ideas which
activate his own actions.

Michael Gordge

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:416cf95e-a591-4ff9-81ee-1924e318f7dc@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 23, 9:00 am, "Brian Fletcher" gmail.com> wrote:

Thats very good Brain, the only thing that can stop or violate the
natural freedoms of nature is an initiated, by man, un-natural
opposite force.

Which is why Rand coined the principled phrase, "the non-initiation of
force" as a moral code of conduct between peaceful human individuals,
the context being man's correct identity "the rational animal".

Man breaths his own air, he is responsible for his own ideas which
activate his own actions.

Michael Gordge

This is a good example of a parallel reality.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:37:55 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

Money as speech. Just roll that around for a bit.

Money is not a human being. Making money speech tries to make money
human. If money is the same as speech, then any object can be also.
... so can guns.

His argument is dull and damned. Damned to be valid only to dullards.
accepted only through force not reason.

"Fred Weiss" papertig.com> wrote in message
news:d39c4c63-6154-412f-a388-8a886de72d81@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Money as debt

A short film by Paul Grignon

Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency
Committee from 1927-33, opposed the Federal Reserve System. There were three
reported attempts on his life before he finally died of "heart failure."

Here's what he said about the Federal Reserve from the floor of Congress:

On Mar 24, 11:16 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

That's a rather bizarre distortion of what he is saying.

He's saying that it's use - or amount - should not be a basis for
restrictions on speech. In fact, restricting it in this way is a clear
violation of free speech, since it limits your ability to be heard
merely on those grounds alone.

Fred Weiss

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:35:33 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

Hardly. The upholding of limits

Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court
of the United States upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and
ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of
constitutionally protected free speech. The court also stated candidates
can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

"Spending money" is equated with speech in that political money is
speech. Speech is an innate human capability and comes from thought.
The absolute value of free speech is that a person's thought can be heard
and, if others agree with the thought, a political consensus is formed.

Money is not human. It is a thing, an object. It has no innate merit or
absolute value. As with any object, it can be given or found, taken away
or lost, horded, squandered, stolen or earned because it is not part of
the human being. It is only relative to the human by a human design.