Pin It

There has to be a free-speech litmus 


Our freedom of speech First Amendment rights conflict with our 14th Amendment rights for equal representation. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that money is personal property and is used to express the same way as freedom of speech is unlimited. Our legislators have tried to limit the amount of money individuals can donate, but groups can donate unrestricted.

Freedom of speech donation money has to have some litmus test where the potential of compromise for equal representation’s integrity cannot be manipulated.

The Supreme Court’s ruling for the maintenance of equal representation has given us guidelines to follow for the cases of gerrymandering. These guidelines give us flexibilities to meet the needs of all changes for equal representation within the established districts.

We have districts in all forms within our social structure. The purpose of having districts is to establish boundaries and maintain responsibilities of need and representation.

Someone who has “standing” could request that the Supreme Court revisit the Buckley v. Valeo decision on money’s freedom of speech rights to that of gerrymandering guidelines for maintaining equal representation within our districts.

“Monies from outside our district cannot vote.”

Readers Poll

How do you feel about the availability of mental health services in SLO County? 

  • There is not enough access, and there needs to be more.
  • There is access but only for those with a lot of money.
  • Most people should be able to afford it if they knew how to find it.
  • People need to learn to get over their issues themselves.

View Results

Pin It


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Search, Find, Enjoy

Submit an event

More by Eugene G. Carl

Trending Now