Kira Tosi, St. Francis Xavier University

In his paper, Treyton Zanutto investigates the morality of using money as speech, contemplating both sides that money should be used as speech and that it should not. I will evaluate two aspects I noticed about this paper. My primary concern was a lack of distinction between the use of money as speech and money objectively as speech, although both matters are defined separately. Considering that this is a philosophy paper, another concern of mine is that he has only made a comparison, as opposed to arguing something, which is not clear in this paper that he has.

Zanutto acknowledges the difference between money being speech in the literal sense and the use of money as speech. He states, “money should be equally subject to federal regulation as spending money is also an act adjacent to, but not quite, speech.” He goes on to fumble between the two, using different phrasing of the term ‘money as speech’ when intending to imply its use. This can make the paper more confusing because the distinction is essential, especially when referencing the First Amendment, which has a different effect on money literally being speech and money being used to facilitate speech. In the latter case, I wonder if freedom of expression, which is also protected under the First Amendment, might be a better route to take.

Would anything be lost to the argument by using the term expression as opposed to speech? Referencing freedom of expression instead of free speech may create a better case for analysis, as the phrasing around money being speech would not have to be as specific. The issue with the use of money being limited like this is that money does not seem to be as much speech as a condition. I find it crucial to consider whether money is really the issue in the use of money as speech, because money only has the ability to facilitate a certain desired speech and are facilitators as guilty as those performing an action? Whatever the answer to that is, the use of money would fit more comfortably under the title of expression, and not speech, correct? Using the term expression could allow Zanutto’s potential argument flexibility and perhaps added strength.

My final concern is that of Zanutto’s lack of argument. In philosophy papers, the goal is generally to argue, as well as to compare but he does not come to any sort of

77