The CATO Institute, a well-known libertarian think tank in Washington, DC, is against reformers; they think free speech equates with money. I believe the landmark US Supreme Court case that they validate that belief in, Buckley v. Valeo, is dead wrong. Speech is speech, in and of itself-- money is nothing but an extension of speech. Why should anyone individual or group have exclusive free speech as opposed to their American opponents only because they use more money?

Let's take campaign finance donations. Every candidate for public office in theory enjoys unlimited free speech. What does that role have anything to do with financial donations to his/her campaign? If a large district's candidates need to use commercial advertising services in order to speak to potential voters in order to be able to reach them, then an extension, e.g. money, is used.

What are the sources of the candidates' money that are valid, is another debate. I believe that since the electoral process is for offices that are public only, then the extension of free speech required to reach every one of the district's potential voters should be financed by government.

###