Your argument was simply that money is speech, as if it's a tautology. I didn't feel like going through a long, detailed refutation if that's the level of effort you were going to put in.
The whole thing about money being speech is not because money actually is speech. The issue is that putting restrictions on how people spend their money can unconstitutionally limit their freedom of speech, or of the press. For instance, if you say that they can speak all they want, but can't spend more than $10 on printing costs, then you've limited their freedom of the press. So, the court can strike down laws about spending money in elections if it unduly restricts people's freedom of speech and of the press.
That doesn't mean that all money is speech. Money is trade, commerce; and the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce (which the court has since broadened to pretty much all commerce or economic activity, even within a single state, as it can affect interstate prices, which I think is somewhat dubious, but that's the precedent we've got).
So, it's the tension between these two issues is where we have the debate. Money isn't speech, but because money can be used to buy almost anything, including a forum for your speech, it's hard to block money without also blocking speech.
I think that we can do considerably better than what we are doing, however. Paying money directly to a candidate or campaign goes beyond simple speech; that could be construed as bribery. With appropriate limits on campaign contributions, you can reduce the disparity, and make it so that everyone (or almost everyone) can afford the same impact on the campaign, though I still find it a little bit dubious.
But beyond campaign contributions, it's hard to determine where to draw the line. It's very easy to write laws which do unjustly forbid certain kinds of political speech. It's also very easy to turn from a democracy into a plutocracy by simply allowing money to buy everything that actually matters in government. I don't know what the right solution is, but I suspect that reducing the financial incentives for congressional staffers and congressmen to act in the interests of those with money will help to get changes in the government that the public actually wants.
I agree about the problem of bribing politicians and agree that direct donation/payments should be reported and controlled. This is a restriction on the candidate not on the individual or corporation, the candidates campaign cannot accept the funds.
I believe a person or a corporation should be able to spend their money in anyway they see fit and advertise anything they want to.
I've stated before in other comments that they way to remove corruption is to remove the incentive for corruption -- reduce the amount of money controlled by congress and the scope of it's control (to prevent regulatory capture). The easiest way to do this is to support action at the state level and only at the federal level for truly national/interstate things. For instance, federal pollution controls only apply to pollution that crosses state lines. This way lobbying is less effective since the amount of effort vs payoff is reduced.
We also need to stop trying ram through legislation whenever a given party is in power. Instead they should seek consensus and if none can be found do nothing.
The whole thing about money being speech is not because money actually is speech. The issue is that putting restrictions on how people spend their money can unconstitutionally limit their freedom of speech, or of the press. For instance, if you say that they can speak all they want, but can't spend more than $10 on printing costs, then you've limited their freedom of the press. So, the court can strike down laws about spending money in elections if it unduly restricts people's freedom of speech and of the press.
That doesn't mean that all money is speech. Money is trade, commerce; and the Constitution explicitly allows Congress to pass laws relating to interstate commerce (which the court has since broadened to pretty much all commerce or economic activity, even within a single state, as it can affect interstate prices, which I think is somewhat dubious, but that's the precedent we've got).
So, it's the tension between these two issues is where we have the debate. Money isn't speech, but because money can be used to buy almost anything, including a forum for your speech, it's hard to block money without also blocking speech.
I think that we can do considerably better than what we are doing, however. Paying money directly to a candidate or campaign goes beyond simple speech; that could be construed as bribery. With appropriate limits on campaign contributions, you can reduce the disparity, and make it so that everyone (or almost everyone) can afford the same impact on the campaign, though I still find it a little bit dubious.
But beyond campaign contributions, it's hard to determine where to draw the line. It's very easy to write laws which do unjustly forbid certain kinds of political speech. It's also very easy to turn from a democracy into a plutocracy by simply allowing money to buy everything that actually matters in government. I don't know what the right solution is, but I suspect that reducing the financial incentives for congressional staffers and congressmen to act in the interests of those with money will help to get changes in the government that the public actually wants.