I'm with you on that, for sure.

What the purportedly "classic" interpreters of the Constitution sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court seem to have overlooked with that decision to allow the wealthy corporations to spend unlimited money supporting/defeating candidates/issues, is that, when the constitution was written, speech meant the stuff that comes out of one's mouth when one's expressing his political opinion, of which nearly every citizen has a potentially infinite amount. I don't know how they, with their literalist attitudes, could have decided that what comes out of one's checkbook is also "speech."

RE