"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.
You won't find a a lot of freedoms in the constitition. The document lists the restictions on the government - it is not an exhaustive list of personal freedoms.
You are sloppy in your wording. I do not believe you mean that I'm free to buy votes directly.
You are also sloppy in your history. You missed a major phrase in the the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.This normal (non crit-lit) interpretation would be that I can say anything I want in public or private, and I am free to print and distribute the same. To believe as you do, I would have to believe that the Founders had free (as in beer) printers and ink and paper, which would be required if limiting money would not also limit the printing press.
Freedom of the press means that anybody who owns or can rent a printing press is free to print and distribute whatever speech they want. And that takes money.