It would be interesting to see someone challenge this through reference to Citizens United. If people can pool their funds to bribe donate to politicians and have it count as speech, it sure as shit seems like bail funds should count as protected as well. I know that the supreme court doesn’t give a shit about precedent or consistency, but it would make for a good public spectacle to force them to say that (again).
It would be interesting to see someone challenge this through reference to Citizens United. If people can pool their funds to
bribedonate to politicians and have it count as speech, it sure as shit seems like bail funds should count as protected as well. I know that the supreme court doesn’t give a shit about precedent or consistency, but it would make for a good public spectacle to force them to say that (again).