What it is
“Money as speech” is shorthand for the reasoning in two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010): spending money to spread a political message is a form of speech, so caps on that spending restrict speech.
The rebuttal I find strongest: if amplifying a message is speech, then there’s no natural stopping point. The loudest wallet wins, and that’s not what free speech was supposed to protect.
How it shows up for me
I believe in free speech deeply, and that’s exactly why this bothers me. My voice and a billionaire’s budget aren’t the same kind of thing, and pretending they are makes my voice smaller.