by b_b

I've been struggling on this question for the last few days. If money is speech, and I can encourage whomever I want to vote for whomever I want, then why can't I pay them to do so? In the dissent, Stevens goes on about the potential for corporations and wealthy individuals to buy votes in the Congress, but he doesn't address vote buying in the electorate. Why? It seems only a natural extension to me that if money is speech, then there should be no restrictions on what I can spend cash. If Wal-Mart wants to influence an election, why not just say "Bring us a picture of your ballot showing you voted for X, and you get 20% off any item."

I assume this is a very naive thought, but could someone who knows more about the law then I shed some light for me? It seems that its just another form of election spending, and I can't think of any way in which its different than political advertising, aside from likely being more effective. If there are no limits, then there should be no limits. I wonder if anyone will ever have the balls to challenge this law. It would be the best example of a reductio ad absurdum as I could think of for why Citizens United is a poor legal opinion.