“Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?”
I don’t think so.
Yes.
As long as Yankee Democrat gets to vote on bills that affect me, I can darn well contribute to his opponent.
Contributing to any candidate, anywhere, anytime, in any amount, is a right that should never be limited in a free society.
If they would just repeal the 17th amendment this would not be an issue.
When it’s right, it’s right, and it’s better than the plantation government telling us what we can think, and what we can do with our money.
If there wasn’t you couldn’t have national political parties... of course that makes me want to make it illegal.
Beyond mundane person-to-small-group speech, and the rare & unpredictable "viral meme", speech costs money. It requires some form of the Constitutionally-specified "press" (broadly defined) ... and presses cost money. Renting radio/TV time to an established audience costs money. Printing ads costs money. Websites & mass emails cost money.
If you want to "speak" to a sociopolitically meaningful number of people, that speech requires a press for mass distribution. Both "speech" and "press" are explicitly and sternly protected by the Constitution. One can "speak" by financially facilitating another's communications via mass-distribution devices in lieu of verbally repeating the message himself.
Yes, I understand how "big money" can distort political speech. Of course it can. If you want to talk to a LOT of people, it will take a lot of money; if you're willing to put your net worth into spreading a message, that's your choice - and you'll get a lot of influence as a result.
Republicans don't like the idea that TEA party conservatives have stopped giving to their PACs and are donating directly to conservative candidates they support, and they want to put a stop to it.
It’s’ a good notion and states should be very interested in those changes being made.
It dilutes the influence of the State (such as a small state) by the money and power in larger states.