Hartmann: Money is free speech...how about tents?
So why is it -- going off the decision by the high court in Buckley versus Valeo
-- that when political expression is given the "broadest possible protection," money is protected but tents are not? And why is it -- when recognizing the CREATIVE dynamic of free expression -- that again money is protected, but tents are not? The answer is fairly obvious: corporations have a lot of money and not a lot of tents. The ironic thing is that Occupy Wall Street
is demonstrating -- in large part -- against these two court cases, against the idea that money is speech. So Supreme Court rulings that big green pieces of fabrics are NOT a form of free speech is just fine, just as long as the court is consistent and rules that the little green pieces of fabric are not speech either. But until that happens -- until the court treats all fabric in the same way -- then Occupy Wall Street needs to keep camping out. The message to the movement is simple: start building your tents out of stitched-together dollar bills.