For example, many well-known businesses and companies like Nike and Apple use the valuable resource of money and spend millions of dollars every year advertising their industry but are not looked down upon for doing so; instead they are often greatly rewarded for it. It costs money for all these groups to let the world know who they are, and in this country any citizen should have the right to spend that money without the government putting them down for having views other than their own. And as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit” (Ralph). Money is a tool and it should be allowed to serve its purpose and achieve widespread communication in any political affair as long as it is not used for a dishonest and manipulative agenda. David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, also states that, “Spending or donating money to support or facilitate speech is expressive and deserves some protection. But money simply doesn 't make it into the category of things that are and embody speech, such as books, films, or blogs” (Kairys). This supports the concept that money can be used to support expression, but is not expression itself. Nevertheless, it has still become a concern to the citizens who believe, “The more money, the more free speech” (Tiffany). This is not technically true, but it is a well-known notion that virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society involves the expenditure of money, although it is not a necessity. Anyone can voice their opinions and gain an audience’s attention from sacrificing time and effort to be heard. But this doesn’t mean that the overall use of money cannot become a corrupt exploit for a corporation’s immoral politics. It will most likely happen but it is the citizen’s free will to comply or disagree with the deceit of the
For example, many well-known businesses and companies like Nike and Apple use the valuable resource of money and spend millions of dollars every year advertising their industry but are not looked down upon for doing so; instead they are often greatly rewarded for it. It costs money for all these groups to let the world know who they are, and in this country any citizen should have the right to spend that money without the government putting them down for having views other than their own. And as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “The desire of gold is not for gold. It is for the means of freedom and benefit” (Ralph). Money is a tool and it should be allowed to serve its purpose and achieve widespread communication in any political affair as long as it is not used for a dishonest and manipulative agenda. David Kairys, a law professor at Temple University, also states that, “Spending or donating money to support or facilitate speech is expressive and deserves some protection. But money simply doesn 't make it into the category of things that are and embody speech, such as books, films, or blogs” (Kairys). This supports the concept that money can be used to support expression, but is not expression itself. Nevertheless, it has still become a concern to the citizens who believe, “The more money, the more free speech” (Tiffany). This is not technically true, but it is a well-known notion that virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society involves the expenditure of money, although it is not a necessity. Anyone can voice their opinions and gain an audience’s attention from sacrificing time and effort to be heard. But this doesn’t mean that the overall use of money cannot become a corrupt exploit for a corporation’s immoral politics. It will most likely happen but it is the citizen’s free will to comply or disagree with the deceit of the