The USSC does not say that "money is speech"

[cthulu2016]

40. While your reply would be apropos in a courtroom, we aren't in one

The word "slander" is correctly used, in a rhetorical context (which I believe we are in), to denote any defaming statement (written or spoken) that is false... and particularly so when it is malicious.

My statement stands.

As for the snark about the complexities of Citizen's United and McCutcheon... if anyone disagrees with the OP then god help them with complexities.

Since the dissents in those cases don't disagree with anything in the OP it would take either an exceptional subtlety of mind, or perhaps crudeness of mind, to find the OP supportive of those decisions.

Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer do not speak or write in bumper-stickers. The dissents do not talk about how if money is speech they have a first amendment right to buy drugs, or how if corporations are people then corporations formed less than 18 years ago cannot merge with older corporations, lest it be statutory rape.

This entire thread is equivalent to stating that human beings did not evolve from chimps (we assuredly did not) and thence being denounced as an evolution denier.

The morning McCutcheon was announced there were people here who thought that all limits on donations had been eliminated. What is the upside to people having that belief?

If campaign finance is to be re-reformed it will not be because some genius makes it to the Supreme Court to announce that corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

It will rely on arguments about the proper parameters of the necessity, in some form, that corporations be persons and money be speech in certain legal contexts.