Quin, not even the 1970s Supreme Court agreed with your
apparently sweeping dismissal of money's connection with speech.
See Buckley v. Valeo:
A restriction on the amount of money a person or
group can spend on political communication during a campaign
necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the
number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the
size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means
of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the
expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or
leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches
and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the
event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio,
and other mass media for news and information has made these
expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of
effective political speech. 424 U.S. at 19.
Those who still believe that BCRA abridges free speech will likely
keep objecting. You should raise your favorite issues too -- even
those that often seem like lost causes, such as abortion and
entitlements. That is the great thing about a (generally) robust
freedom of speech.
topics:
Television, Entitlements, Abortion, Supreme Court