Speech is Speech.

We are now being assailed by political "speech" in the form of television ads and billboards funded by anonymous groups or persons, telephone robo-calls, letters from our employers telling us which candidates pose a threat to our jobs, and email appeals for money to support or attack particular candidates. According to our Supreme Court all of this "speech" is protected by our federal Constitution.

My Webster's defines speech as "oral communication" and "a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker." Television ads usually have an anonymous speaker but much of the message is conveyed by images and printed quotations. My Webster's is too old to know what robo-calls are. Form letters and email messages aren't speech at all. And none of these forms of "speech" allow me to ask questions.

In an article in the New York Times by Steven Greenhouse the author reports that "David A. Siegel, 77,chief executive of Westgate Resorts, a major time-share company, wrote to his 7,000 employee, saying that if Obama won, the prospect of higher taxes could hurt the company's future." In an interview Siegel said "I really wanted them to know how I felt four more years under President Obama was going to affect them." He further explained "It would be no different from telling your children: 'Eat your spinach. It's good for you.' "

So now I have to wonder if political "speech" is like child rearing and the American electorate are a bunch of children. Is that what the framers of our Constitution had in mind?

As for the email appeals I have been deleting them en masse. If money is going to determine the outcome of this election then we, the children, have already lost no matter who wins.