Is money speech?

To approach the "is money speech" question, it is helpful to start with a rephrasing.

To wit, just what is this "speech" that is the subject at hand?

At bottom, this concerns  the role for "speech" in the governance of our society.

One kind of governance is by coercion and force, practiced by some members of the society on other members, with the latter having no say.

That is tyranny.

Our country rejects tyranny. We believe governance is not to be effectuated through coercion and force.

Instead, in our democracy, people have a say about society's governance.

This say about governance is by means of the vote.

People have varying ideas about what they want in the governance of their society, they cast votes in various ways for what they want, and there is an agreement to go along with the outcomes of votes.

In this democratic process, instead of force and coercion, competing ideas and candidates are presented for consideration of the voters, relevant information and facts are adduced, and there is discussion and debate for trying to persuade others about the governance of the society and about how voters should cast their votes.

This presentation of competing ideas and candidates, the adducing of relevant facts and information, and the discussion and debate to inform and ultimately to persuade voters about society's governance, is the speech that is subject at hand. The First Amendment protects such speech from abridgment by the government.

The tricky part of the speech is not the mere formulation and articulation of competing ideas but rather the means for informing, and persuading or trying to persuade, voters about the competing ideas and candidates, and about the relevant facts and information.

It would be most copacetic if all the various ideas for the society's governance could, together with all relevant facts and information, be assembled and directly injected into the brains of everyone for their consideration, and then be evaluated  and decided on by each person as to what that person wants regarding society's governance, and acted on by votes being cast accordingly, with the outcomes of the votes deciding about society's governance.

That would be ideal, but the reality falls painfully short and is messy.

The realm of political speech is a gargantuan, cacophonous Tower of Babel. It is overwhelming to the average person to listen to and process the speech, including learning and evaluating relevant facts and information. There are disparate abilities, opportunities and willingness of people to listen to and process the speech. In the Tower of Babel, volume and repetition of speech are significant in affecting how people vote. Playing to people's biases and emotions also works well in getting votes. Organizing and deploying volunteers to propagate campaign messages are helpful to get votes. The tools of TV and other advertising are also of benefit, but cost significant money.

In this real world, it misses the mark to conceive of speech as mere formulation and articulation of ideas and to ignore the real world importance that speech cannot fulfill its role in determining society's governance without means for communication of the ideas, including relevant facts and information. Human and economic resources are needed to make the communication. These may be resources to recruit, organize and deploy volunteers in an election campaign, or money to pay for TV advertising.

The crux of this is that there cannot be meaningful speech in the political process if resources for making the speech are disallowed.

By the same token, if resources for making speech in the process are limited, that limits the speech.

In short,  meaningful speech in the political process cannot be separated from the use of resources that are needed in order to make the speech.

This is true whether the resources are money to pay for TV ads or are other resources for, say, recruiting, organizing and deploying volunteers in an election campaign.

Thus, the question "is money speech?" is not a helpful question.

The question needs to be "what resources, if any, should be limited or disallowed in the making of speech?"

In answering the question, rationales and justifications need to be advanced for why some, if any, resources should be disallowed or limited by the government in the communication of speech.

One thing that would seem certain is that, no matter what reform is implemented, people will not become equal in making and communicating speech. Inequalities will persist in numerous ways, such as in abilities and interest of people to formulate and articulate speech, opportunities to spend time and efforts to communicate speech, powers of persuasion, abilities in organizing a campaign for persuading people about political ideas and getting people to join efforts in the campaign of persuasion, status and position in the community, and access to  economic, human and other resources needed to make and communicate speech.

Also, in considering the question of the government disallowing or limiting resources which can be utilized in making and communicating speech, one ought to be attuned to the risk of lawmakers disallowing or limiting resources in a way which will help keep them in office. In the realm of redistricting and gerrymandering, lawmakers have exhibited reprehensible willingness to put their self interest first in keeping themselves in office, and failing to vindicate the public interest. How the politicians have failed the public interest on redistricting and gerrymandering should cause pause in considering how much politicians should be allowed to limit the use of resources in the making of speech in the political process.