Indeed. Free speech must be cut back to just include speech, written, spoken, sung or the like. Artistic expression should always fall under this too.<quoted text>
Agreed. And the limit probably should be that you are free to express ideas verbally to those interested in hearing them, meaning that you cannot be systematically suppressed from doing so. The rule exists to keep the marketplace of ideas open, not for the wealthiest interests to pervert the democratic process, wherein "One man, one vote" becomes "One dollar, one vote."
The problem seems to be that freedom of speech has been expanded to freedom of expression, and dumping money into elections or lobbying legislators is called speech. Obviously, some forms of expression are not acceptable, such as bribery and extortion.
But that should be then end of it--money should never be included, except as a side issue. The raw spending of money is not speech, per say, it is >>purchase<<. Which is vastly different from speech.
Thus the artist may make a painting that sells or not, but his painting is protected. The sale of the same? Is not--it either does or it does not, having no bearing on the painting itself.
Same for speech.
But corporations, being a convenient legal fiction? Cannot actually speak, having no actual corpus to do the speaking. Speaking by proxy should only be permitted, provided the proxy takes 100% of the responsibility >>in addition<< to the person being spoken for also takes 100% of the responsibility-- they each must share the same fate (whatever it may be).
But again, I would strip all free speech "rights" from corporations, immediately. They are not people-- it is a convenient legal fiction, only. Moreover, I would make it impossible for officers in any corporation to be individually protected from misdeeds the corporation might do-- these officers would each and every one, to 100%, be accountable, personally, for any and all things the corporation may do.
That would put a halt to about 87.5% of corporate evil doings.
Ain't I a stinker?:D