Regarding the recent Supreme Court ruling which classifies as unconstitutional previous restrictions on the donation of money to political campaigns/causes:
Assume the following set of premises:
1) The donation of money to political causes may be classified as a manifestation of the right to free speech (per Supreme Court precedent, apparently).
2) It is unconstitutional to restrict free speech.
3) The government is constitutionally empowered to tax its citizens.
4) To take money from someone is to restrict their ability to donate that money to a cause (political or not).
5) To tax someone is to take money from them.
Conclusion: taxation is unconstitutional, as a restriction on free speech.
Could someone point out the flaw in this reasoning? I mean, I’m certainly willing to accept that there is one, but I’d like someone to point out which of the assumptions I’ve made is incorrectly worded, or unwarranted (per stare decisis), or whatever.
For my part – insofar as both the power of Congress to tax and the right to free speech are expressly delineated in the Constitution – I’m inclined to think that the treatment of monetary donation as a form of free speech is bullshit, especially for anyone who argues that we ought to try to discern the intent of the Framers in our judicial decisions. I’m inclined to think that it was an ill-considered decision designed to complement corporate personhood, and nothing more.