MONEY TALKS

Years ago, the courts declared that money was equivalent to "speech", at least in politics.I suppose that what money says is that "I like your ideas and I trust and support you".  That may be true about the small donor but the large contributors, who usually contribute to all sides, are different.  They are hedging their bets.  They are saying, "We don't care what you believe or how competent you are or who wins, just give us what we want when we want it."  When does "speech" become a bribe?

There is no legal way to prevent this kind of speech but when the "favor" is returned, the quid pro quo is provable and should be actionable.  Representatives should be required to recuse themselves from voting upon legislation which would benefit large donors.  Elected officials are restrained from accepting large gifts from anyone AFTER they are elected but are permitted take bribes, in the form of political donations, BEFORE they are elected.  Does that make sense to you?