TruthOrFake Logo
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: The First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending.

Fact Check: The First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending.

Published July 1, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
?
VERDICT
Unverified

# Fact Check: "The First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending." ## What We Know The First Amendment of the United States Cons...

Fact Check: "The First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending."

What We Know

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include various forms of expression, including political speech. According to the First Amendment Encyclopedia, political speech is considered the most protected category of speech under the First Amendment. This protection extends to expenditures related to political campaigns, as established in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

Moreover, the Congressional Research Service notes that the regulation of campaign finance is subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, meaning that any law limiting political spending must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This reinforces the notion that political spending is indeed protected as a form of free speech.

Analysis

The claim that the First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending, is well-supported by legal precedent and scholarly analysis. The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is a pivotal point in this discussion, as it explicitly states that political spending is a form of speech that cannot be limited by the government. This has been further elaborated in various legal analyses, such as those found in the Harvard Law Review, which discusses how campaign finance regulations often face constitutional challenges due to their implications on free speech.

However, it is important to note that while the First Amendment protects political spending, this protection is not absolute. There are ongoing debates regarding the implications of such spending on democracy and electoral integrity. Articles like the one from FindLaw highlight the tension between free speech and the potential for corruption or undue influence in the political process.

The sources used in this analysis are reliable, with the First Amendment Encyclopedia and the Congressional Research Service being reputable institutions in the field of constitutional law. However, the interpretations and implications of these rulings can vary, and some critiques exist regarding the impact of political spending on democratic processes.

Conclusion

The claim that "The First Amendment protects free speech, including political spending" is largely supported by legal precedent and scholarly analysis. However, the complexities surrounding the implications of this protection warrant a nuanced understanding. Therefore, while the core assertion is accurate, the broader context and ongoing debates about the consequences of such protections lead to the verdict of Unverified. This reflects the need for further exploration of how these protections interact with democratic principles and electoral integrity.

Sources

  1. Political Speech | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
  2. Politics and Terrorism: What Happens When Money Is Speech?
  3. Campaign Finance and the First Amendment: Supreme ...
  4. $peech
  5. ASDA Complaint E-mail Address — MoneySavingExpert Forum
  6. The First Amendment, Campaign Finance Laws, and the ...
  7. Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 I cannot believe that Trump is cutting Medicaid. Actually, what I meant to say is that I can't believe he's not cutting more of it because medicaid is a money laundering scheme for your government. Congratulations all you bleeding heart democrats. Instead of raging against the machine, you're bending over for it. Medicaid is jointly run by the states and the feds and for every one dollar that your state allocates to the program, the Feds turn around and match that at a level of one 00 percent so one dollar up to nine dollars. And this money comes from taxpayers in other 00:34 states. Your money has a 900% return rate at someone else's expense. Why wouldn't you expand the program? Thanks Obama. That's exactly how we wound up with way too many Medicaid recipients in the first place. Like everything related to healthcare the providers are in bed with the government on this one too because the government can tax the providers. 1. Use that dollar to collect the up to nine dollars in federal funds and to reimburse the provider their original dollar. What? Robbing the taxpayer to pad the funding pool leading to increase reimbursements for 01:06 Medicaid for the providers. Yeah, if I'm a doctor or a health care facility, I'm saying sign me up to that. Yes, the medical industrial complex totally has your best interest in mind so go ahead and swallow up those vaccines like a good little comrade. Age me harder daddy. And speaking of comrades, do you know how many people in this country receive Medicaid that shouldn't? Before you start screaming, everyone should get free health care. Not the argument here. We do not have universal health care in the United States. It doesn't work and since we don't have it, that means someone is paying for it and guess what? There are lower-income families 01:37 who don't qualify for the benefits but they're taxpayers and they're being burdened by this. Back to the point which is that the system is insanely abused. I used to do child support referee work for years and you would v

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Vance you flip flop faster than pages in the Bible. You talk a big game about Christian values but you support closing the border, deporting refugees, separating immigrant families, even building detention camps. You treat faith like a political tool. One day you use it to oppose same sex marriage. The next you use it to justify expansionism. On Sunday you're on your knees in church. On Monday you're backing Trump's America first agenda. In the of traditional family, you support 00:32 cutting aid for the poor. In the name of border security, you support violent enforcement against asylum seekers. That's not defending values that's wrapping cruelty in scripture. You say it's about protecting the country but I remember Jesus talked about welcoming
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 Vance you flip flop faster than pages in the Bible. You talk a big game about Christian values but you support closing the border, deporting refugees, separating immigrant families, even building detention camps. You treat faith like a political tool. One day you use it to oppose same sex marriage. The next you use it to justify expansionism. On Sunday you're on your knees in church. On Monday you're backing Trump's America first agenda. In the of traditional family, you support 00:32 cutting aid for the poor. In the name of border security, you support violent enforcement against asylum seekers. That's not defending values that's wrapping cruelty in scripture. You say it's about protecting the country but I remember Jesus talked about welcoming

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 Vance you flip flop faster than pages in the Bible. You talk a big game about Christian values but you support closing the border, deporting refugees, separating immigrant families, even building detention camps. You treat faith like a political tool. One day you use it to oppose same sex marriage. The next you use it to justify expansionism. On Sunday you're on your knees in church. On Monday you're backing Trump's America first agenda. In the of traditional family, you support 00:32 cutting aid for the poor. In the name of border security, you support violent enforcement against asylum seekers. That's not defending values that's wrapping cruelty in scripture. You say it's about protecting the country but I remember Jesus talked about welcoming

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: That Executive Order 14169 (signed January 20, 2025) froze U.S. foreign aid—including PEPFAR—causing immediate disruptions in HIV programs across sub‑Saharan Africa and resulting in thousands of deaths within the first month, with projections of tens to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths if the freeze persists.
Partially True

Fact Check: That Executive Order 14169 (signed January 20, 2025) froze U.S. foreign aid—including PEPFAR—causing immediate disruptions in HIV programs across sub‑Saharan Africa and resulting in thousands of deaths within the first month, with projections of tens to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths if the freeze persists.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: That Executive Order 14169 (signed January 20, 2025) froze U.S. foreign aid—including PEPFAR—causing immediate disruptions in HIV programs across sub‑Saharan Africa and resulting in thousands of deaths within the first month, with projections of tens to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths if the freeze persists.

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.
True

Fact Check: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The kind of masculine energy, I think, is good. Having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits. That was Mark Zuckerberg speaking on the Joe Rogan podcast in January. The Meta CEO made these comments just as his company was announcing sweeping policy changes, from unwinding its hate speech rules, to rolling back diversity efforts, to breaking up its civil rights team, to ending the fact-checking program that infuriated President Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speed and scope of these moves gave many onlookers a sense of whiplash. So we spoke to more than 50 people about Mark Zuckerberg's politics and his tumultuous relationship to Washington over the years to find out what's up.

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine.Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'I like this kind of e-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes.
Unverified

Fact Check: 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine.Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'I like this kind of e-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine.Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.'I like this kind of e-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes.

Aug 12, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks