Many people are honoring the memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by making political contributions to the campaigns of Democrats running for Senate. This is ironic, because Ginsburg herself was a consistent vote in the Supreme Court to restrict the ability of people to make such political expenditures, notwithstanding the First Amendment preventing Congress from abridging the rights of speech, assembly, and petition. In virtually every campaign finance case that came before her— Citizens United, McConnell v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, Davis v. FEC, Nixon v. Shrink, Randall v. Sorrell—Ginsburg deferred to the legislators who enacted restrictive campaign finance laws, ostensibly to prevent the corrupting influence of campaign contributions. She declined to use the First Amendment to strike down the laws as unconstitutional.
Anyone memorializing her with campaign contributions may want to consider the fact that if they succeed in getting a Democratic-dominated Senate and a Democratic-appointee dominated Supreme Court, they are in peril of having the ability to make such contributions eliminated or further restricted. Back in 2011, 17 senators—16 Democrats plus Bernie Sanders—backed a constitutional amendment gutting the First Amendment and empowering Congress to make more laws limiting spending for or against political candidates and contributions to candidates.
Personally, I'm going to try to honor Ginsburg's memory by cultivating a civil friendship with someone I disagree with politically, the way that Ginsburg did with Antonin Scalia.