This looks like an attack on “freedom of speech”.
I wanted to say: "I strongly disagree", but had my doubts about semantics.
I looked it up:
the right to express any opinions in public
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I still strongly disagree again with what you said. Freedom of speech means nobody, and especially the government, is allowed to force you to keep quiet on any subject. But it seems totally fine to me to pay someone to say something. That's like a job, and if you take the job, you'll have to do it.
People often confuse "
freedom of speech" with "
freedom from consequences". Everyone has the right to say what they like, but doesn't have any innate right to get paid for it. Being part of a sig campaign is a choice, not a human right. It would actually be a bigger attack on freedom if a campaign manager didn't have the right to remove a participant that is in breach of agreed terms.
Another point people need to remember is that campaign managers can be judged on their performance and it could impact their chances of future employment. Imagine you have a company. You take the decision to use your money to hire someone here on the forum to promote your company by running a signature campaign. Then imagine all the participants kept promoting other companies and not yours. Would you consider that money well spent?
I don't see how anyone who isn't running a campaign thinks they're in a position to pass judgment on this matter when it isn't their livelihood on the line.