aristotle2600

I have this crazy idea, of Nathan Fillion as the new Indiana Jones, and you as the equivalent of Marcus Brody. Interested?

Probably yes is the answer, since sound is just vibration, and so is seismic activity. The only difference is frequency and volume, if that.

Since decisions like these always tend to be because courts think they're defending free speech, are you planning on trying for a constitutional amendment? Is there any consensus on what that amending might say? How exactly will you draw the line between people just pooling their resources to make a bigger impact and make their voices heard, and undemocratic manipulation by money? Finally, this may not be your rules exactly, but have you considered educational campaigns to the effect of "Don't be manipulated by advertisements that are designed to folk you into voting a certain way"? I'm a proponent of the (possibly naive) theory that money is only as good as the votes it gains. If we lessen the impact of ads by getting people to ignore them, we lessen the impact of money in politics.