WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – An American law professor came up with a surprising analogy when criticizing recent Supreme Court rulings that eased restrictions on political campaign spending and contributions, according to an article on Raw Story.
If spending money in politics is constitutionally protected free speech, then so is spending money on prostitutes.
“There are lots of forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalize, for example, buying sex, American University professor Jamie Raskin told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “We don’t say if someone wants to purchase the services of a prostitute, well that is just an expression of their speech.”
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on political spending violated the First Amendment.
More recent decisions have opened the floodgates for almost unlimited money in the political arena.
Raskin argued that the people donating the cash want things from the politicians to whom they contribute. Following that logic, he told the Senators, spending money for anything, including sex, should be protected by the First Amendment, too.
“After all, if I just feel very strongly about an issue and I want to give you a thousand dollars or a million dollars to go my way, why shouldn’t you be able to accept it?” he asked.
Raskin concluded his satiric argument saying that Americans recognize there are morals when it comes to accepting political donations.
“I think it is because we believe that within the governmental process and electoral process there are right reasons for those who hold public office to make decisions and there are wrong reasons,” he explained, “and a wrong reason is the money you are either going to put into your pocket or huge amounts of money that you’re going to put into your campaign.”
(TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)