[I made the minimal corrections to this item as required by info from comments. The implications of the correction should require further revision. However, I'm leaving the item & comments for now.]
The Supreme Court's ruling in the "Citizens United" case claimed that unlimited political expenditures were protected as expressions of "free speech". As further legal cases proceed, it begs the question 'When, if ever, does money to politicians cease to be free speech and become bribery?'
Certainly, a person can speak how he feels about a politician both while he is a candidate running for office and later when he is an elected official. I assume I have the right to give my money to strangers on the street, artists I admire, scientists whose research appeals to me, etc. So when are politicians excluded?
Perhaps, the clearest case of "bribery" would be if a politician approached a lobbyist and said, "If you give me $10,000, I'll vote your way on this current legislation." Perhaps, a specific tit-for-tat is a "contract" and is distinguished from "free speech". But what if a lobbyist meets with a politician and says, "We show gratitude for politicians who show wisdom in their legislative voting," and leaves a brochure which makes clear his group's legislative preferences? No specific exchange has been mentioned. Can the lobby freely speak their gratitude with money after the vote?
Let's take it another step back. Suppose the lobbyist meets with the politician and says, "We think you're an intelligent legislator. America needs intelligent legislators. Because we feel so lucky to have great elected officials such as yourself, we'd like to express our free speech with this $10,000. Oh, by the way, I'd like to leave a brochure for you to read when you get a chance." The politician hasn't been explicitly asked to do anything, and he's been given the money before they know for sure which way he will vote. However, the lobbyists know that at least some of the politicians will figure out which side of the bread is buttered, and the number of legislators voting in the desired way will increase.
Is the lobbyists' First Amendment rights being denied if the government forbids them to do this?
I think that would be a foolish interpretation of the First Amendment. ...but I thought the same thing about "Citizens United".
What if the US Chamber of Commerce held an annual award ceremony like the Oscars or the Nobel Prizes. The "best" elected official in each of a number of categories would be given a trophy and a cash prize. There is no direct connection between votes on one specific piece of legislation, and politicians won't know whether they will be a "winner" in a particular year. Yet, as the slogan for a state lottery says, "You've got to be in it to win it." Politicians will know they can't get the cash if they don't vote pro-business. Some politicians would compete with each other during the year to see who could "brown nose" the Chamber the most.
Will we be told that forbidding this denies the ability to give recognition to what some citizens consider to be worthy officials?
The First Amendment is of great importance. However, it's not absolute. Surely, most politicians who might claim unlimited political contributions are protected by an absolute right to free speech don't argue that Wikileaks has the right to disclose uncensored secret documents because free speech is absolute. The First Amendment doesn't give the right to slander or to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Political money as "free speech" poses a clear danger to democracy. It is a necessary exception to free speech.
[Please Note: This is a corrected text in response to early comments. Thank you to those who brought the point to my attention. The distinction being made may very well mean that to get to the possibilities mentioned in this diary additional intermediary ruling(s) may be needed. However, Citizens United may be a step leading in this direction. If this note isn't clear, please see the first comments.]