Giving money is not speech. Direct campaign contributions can be and are limited.

However. Restricting money spent on independent political advocacy, even if directly supporting a particular candidate, burdens multiple 1st amendment rights; free speech, free press, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

You may not realize this, but every major news organization, TV, magazine and newspaper is a corporation.

If the Citizens United decision had come down any other way than it did, the government would have gained the power to censor news about political issues.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of reprehensible religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of reprehensible speech, or of the reprehensible press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Justice Roberts took on unnecessary trouble by identifying money with “speech.” He should have identified money as a means for mass dissemination of speech, ie “the press.”

Nevertheless, despite my instinctive fear of “campaign control” theories that might require me to consult a lawyer before posting about an election, I share widespread dismay at the simple self-interested corruption (as distinct from ideological commitment) behind much of Congressional campaign finance. Our increasingly dysfunctional copyright and patent law is one example of the results. Might it be possible to raise contributions from the ideologically committed in an anonymous way, so the candidate would not realize that a crony-capitalist quid-pro-quo was due?