If it is your position that money does not equal speech in this context, then you can write for the New York Times editorial page. If you cannot raise and spend money for the purspoe of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too.
But the the president did not think that advocacy advertisements should be protected speech. That is why I have such a hard time being satisfied with just a "trust me".
"If it is your position that money does not equal speech in this context, then you can write for the New York Times editorial page. If you cannot raise and spend money for the purpose of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too."
I believe freedom to speak one's mind is protected by the constitution in ways that freedom to spend money to influence elections is not protected by the constitution. I cannot find anything in the constitution about the freedom to spend money on elections.
I am a strict constructionist and they do not appear to be equivalent in the constitution.\
Now actually I believe a democracy implies a freedom to influence elctions with spending but I dont see that as an unlimited right.