I always considered money as an item, article or as you said, property. Never speech. But perhaps money has always been speech. Just not recognized as such or ruled upon by the SCOTUS. Usually, in elections the candidates with the most money wins. Not always, but most of the time. 2016 was an except as Clinton spent 1.4 billion to Trump's 957.6 million.
But money is what pays for TV and radio ads, flyers, the ground game, campaign visits and stops, campaign buttons and bumper stickers, newspaper ads and a bunch more. Perhaps politics has always been about money. But in a more covert or less glaring way. Less exposure to the public. Money bought newspapers and editors all the way back to our first elections. Money buys mass media.
I do think there is a point of diminishing returns on money. That once it reaches a certain point, amount, from that point on the money spent is wasted or at least doesn't have the same impact and that impact diminishes with each extra dollar spent.
I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling that money is speech or that corporations are people. I do understand how money can be considered speech since the one with money is able to utilize the mass media and everything associated with a campaign much more than one who hasn't as much money. Money does give them a bigger voice, a larger bull horn.
I do think all this campaign reform we have gone through to make elections fairer has actually made election worst. I remember when there were no limits on the amount of donations made. But they were all made to the candidates or political party and the candidates and political parties were responsible for the use of that money. No outside groups whatsoever involved.
Now we have all sorts of outside groups running their ads with the actual candidates and the political party's having no control over them. Against the law. No one is responsible for their ads. I think it was better, perhaps even more fairer prior to all this campaign reform.
