Jeff Milchen of Reclaim Democracy attacks the foundations of both the Buckley v. Valeo decision, and the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court building on the Buckley precedent in this op-ed for the Baltimore Sun that makes a compelling argument about the dangers of protecting money's "speech" role in elections ahead of actual speech.

It's a solid summary of the many arguments advanced against Buckley, the most recent Millionaire's Amendment ruling, and the general direction the Court seems to be heading in with respect to campaign finance:

Writing the 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, "Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities." The trouble is, those advantages tend to accrue to the same individuals - not "different candidates."


Justice Alito strangely argued that helping all serious candidates be heard would prevent voters from independently evaluating their choices. He added, "The argument that a candidate's speech may be restricted in order to level electoral opportunity has ominous implications."


What restriction of speech? The amendment's sole effect was to help prevent the candidate with the loudest amplification from drowning out all other voices.