Do you know the address? http://myvidster.fun myvidster Buckley correctly held that spending money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. But the court only found caps on expenditures – and not on the contributions that enable them – to be unconstitutional, reasoning that "while contributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate or an association to present views to the voters, the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor." While the court has since abandoned the concept of "speech by proxy," the contribution-expenditure distinction remains. That distinction has been the target of persistent criticism and its underlying logic was repudiated in subsequent decisions.
