Campaign finance reform will leave you free to speak, as long as you "use your inside voice" and make sure no one's listening
Back in the eighties, campaign finance reform was just the pet project of a few utopian cranks, but sometime in the late 90s, somehow it was decided that all liberals, including Trump, had to be for it. Probably because the elite opinion-makers felt threatened by "new media" and new grassroots political groups that didn't look to them for guidance and approval.
To see what this issue is about, look at the name of the big Supreme Court opinion that all the liberals despise: "Citizens United". That's one of those perfectly-named Supreme Court decisions, like "Loving," "Fullilove," and "Hardwick." The elitists' "Campaign Finance Reform" would basically say that individuals can speak out, and donate small amounts to candidates, but citizens are not free to unite into groups that can put together significant amounts of money for a candidate, or enough money to buy TV ads or other methods of mass communication. And that if citizens unite their resources into a corporation -- which for centuries has been the standard way of getting together to form something larger than yourself -- then that corporation has no free speech rights. And no right to be guided by the conscience or religion of its members or owners when it chooses how to do business.
So Campaign Finance Reform will leave you free to say whatever you want by yourself, to a tiny audience, but not free to get together in groups that could actually do anything significant in politics or public debate. Not unless you are a billionaire.
- Hillary’s chronic anti-speech instincts
- Hail to the Censor! Hillary Clinton's long war on free speech
- Hillary Clinton Says Letting Activists Criticize Her 'Hollowed Out' Our Democracy: The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee thinks more speech makes elections less competitive.
- CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION