Money isn't speech. The issue is to what extent your right to free speech is infringed by laws regulating how (or with whom) you use your money.
Perhaps an analogy will help. You have a right to travel freely. Imagine Congress passes a law banning the use of money to travel between the states. Money is not travel; yet, the law banning the use of money to travel certainly makes it difficult for you to exercise your travel rights.
Now substitute travel with abortion (for abortion rights supporters). Are abortion rights curtailed by this hypothetical law? Substitute travel with the purchase of firearms (for the NRA members out there). Is the right to bear arms infringed?
My examples are admittedly simplistic; yet, the point is that there can be a logical connection between the use of money and the exercise of a right -- including the right to free speech. The extent to which a restriction on the use of money infringes a right, and whether such an infringement is (a) allowed by the Constitution (b) wise as a matter of policy, is open to debate between reasonable people. However, simply stating that "Money IS speech" or "Money ISN'T speech" doesn't advance the conversation much, as your question rightly suggests.
It allows you to pay for pamphlets or tv advertisements so that others can here your message. It actually favors the unknown, those whose opinion won't be covered in the newspaper.
I don't see a problem with individuals or corporations sending out pamphlets or putting out ads (because trying to draw the line would be too hard), as long as the source is clearly indicated as not from the candidate. The problem is when a corporation or individual gives so much money to one candidate that he or she is disproportionately responsible for that candidate's victory. This is the reason why we have 1 vote/person. As it is, the wealthy are able to vote with their money, while the poor can only vote at the polls (with limited choices and high risk of disenfranchisement).
There is a limit on how much people can donate to campaigns, all of the recent hubub has been about corporations acting on their own without coordinate with a campaign.
How do the wealthy vote with their money? They are not buying votes, they are merely trying to influence other voters -- hence it's a free speech issue.
Can someone lay down some information about just how money equates speech. Its used so often by now that its meaning is lost, merely a talking point.