I’m a critic of Citizens United. I’m a supporter of an amendment to reverse it (among other things). I’m even (sort of) a supporter of an amendment to declare “corporations are not persons.” But I am not a supporter of any amendment that purports to declare “Money is not speech.”
My former dean, Geof Stone, explains why in this piece in the Huffington Post. Stone’s work as a First Amendment scholar actually set the framework for the Court’s core First Amendment jurisprudence (not the Citizens United bit, but the content neutral/content based, etc. bit).
I would urge all who care about this issue to think through his piece carefully. My view has been that we need to attack the problem, not with radical changes that would have loads of unintended consequences, but with targeted responses, that would actually address the problem the Court has created.
So, e.g., with this issue: Imagine a city council passed a resolution that said no one could spend more than $100 on a race for City Council (aka, an incumbency protection resolution). If “money is not speech,” how is that successfully attacked?