I just had this odd realization about the ongoing debate about the Citizens United decision, with which I entirely agree.
So, people claim the decision allows corporations to buy elections despite there being no evidence to support that. People also try to claim that they're trying to get money out of politics. All of these arguments fall apart with thirty seconds of logical thought.
I've been arguing for years that money and resources are a necessary component in making free speech viable. Free speech doesn't mean anything if speech that we like is allowed millions of dollars of resources and speech that we don't like is relegated to a person yelling in a public park.
There's an episode of Star Trek - Deep Space Nine that made my argument before I thought about it. The episode is Far Beyond the Stars in which Ben Sisko has a vision of being a black writer under Jim Crow. He tries to get a story published about a black captain in the future and his publisher wouldn't have it. It's suggested that he write his story with chalk on the sidewalk.
That's really what my opponents on this issue are saying - "Say what you want so long as it's written in chalk on a sidewalk. Ink? I have to approve what you write with it."