[Karunamon]

Your summary is laughably, trollishly incorrect.

>His study, he said, analyzed First Amendment challenges from businesses to an array of economic regulations.

Actual summary that's based on the actual article and not whatever tripe you think you read:

Based on an analysis of challenges to various laws on 1A grounds, more challenges are being made by corps fighting economic law (as if money were speech), than by the everyperson.

I'm not sure the conclusion bears out, though. The (patently insane) idea of money==speech is relatively new. Are there really that many first amendment abrogations happening on a daily basis for normal people?

I'm also not sure why you chose to make this a partisan issue. Both major political parties are bought and paid for by large corporations, and framing corporate gaming of the system as a leftist-only issue is incredibly dishonest.

[AhrowTway]

"Money == speech" is a rhetorical device for soapbox points. The ruling for that was very clear in stating that there is no way to separate political speech with the intent to persuade from the costs of such speech. (leaflets, airtime, and meeting halls all cost money) Therefore, spending money on that type of speech is granted 1A coverage because denying people money for that type of speech is the same as denying their right to speak.

[Karunamon]

Whatever the fine details of the ruling, the proverbial floodgates opened immediately after CU.