The above statement is compelling. However, the law suit was about limitation on spending by corporations for elections. There has been a long standing argume

The above statement is compelling. However, the law suit was about limitation on spending by corporations for elections. There has been a long standing argument that "money == speech" or more verbosely, "spending money to get your message out is covered under the first amendment". I don't buy this core argument although I do buy the above statement you quoted.