If Mongolia pays a bunch of US citizens to vote for some candidate that promises to push the US towards militarily supporting Mongolia, do you think the First Amendment supports that?

Or more accurately, imagine if the US had special rules and exceptions for dual citizens of Mongolia and the US that don't exist for any other country and then it allowed those dual citizens to push for certain candidates without having to be registered as a foreign lobby.

Now try substituting Mongolia with Russia or China.

The First Amendment does not explicitly mention campaign spending (or political campaigns at all), and until 2010, the First Amendment was not considered to apply to monetary spending in political campaigns.

The right to petition the government is explicitly protected, but that doesn't apply in the case of IL-9, which was an open race and therefore none of the candidates were actually elected representatives.

They really interpret the First to protect lobbying and campaign donations?

I mean the Second as written also isn’t primarily about the right to pack heat, so it’s not that surprising.

Citizens United is an abomination. Its the reason we're in dire straits at present. It "legalized" bribery.

Money is speech, and is sacred, but books with gay people in them aren't speech, and need to be carefully controlled.

Citizens United cough

If donating money is free speech why don’t you try giving some to a group categorized as a terrorist organization