How does spending money on campaigns qualify as speech?

Spending money in politics is part of our cherished freedom of speech. Every American knows about the right to free speech. It’s a principle that is deeply ingrained into us from a young age. It’s also a vital part of our national identity as a free people. Yet while we agree on its importance in theory, in practice, the exercise of free speech in any meaningful way elicits skepticism. Recent polls show many Americans support the government punishing biased media organizations or limiting offensive speech. Beyond public opinion, there are even certain types of speech that trigger an avalanche of government regulations, not to mention a chorus of condemnation from activist groups. Want to buy an ad asking your senators to support criminal justice reform? Not so fast, some will claim “money isn’t speech,” so it shouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment. Want to form an advocacy organization with like-minded citizens and raise awareness about family issues? Well, “corporations aren’t people,” so they shouldn’t have free speech rights. In the literal sense, it’s true that money isn’t speech and corporations aren’t people. But it shouldn’t take long to realize the implications of imposing limits on spending money or organizing. Doing so would basically make the First Amendment useless for ordinary Americans. Take money, for example. If spending money to express a viewpoint is not protected, then the most impact you can have with free speech is to stand on a chair in a crowded area and start shouting. Reaching any significant number of people requires spending some money. Try posting on the internet without buying a computer, or making fliers without paying for paper and ink. Even borrowing those things would be a “contribution” from someone else. When viewed in this light, it’s no surprise that the Supreme Court has long said that spending money on speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Explanation:

- "the past is made of multitudinous items ranging from anything that can be collected, recollected or assessed to originate in the past. as such, the past is a gallimaufry of particulars that may not have been related in any way. however, the human mind seeks organization to understand concepts and other things. the human mind therefore seeks relationships in explaining and studying the past. history being a humanity, dictates that historians have to serve this human trait by bringing structure to details of the past. historians do this by creating interpretive frameworks that capture as many details as possible."

< 3

answer: nope

explanation: because theirs barely anyone on here to you. but let me see the question. maybe i can , if i know the answer!