I don't understand Republican opposition to campaign finance reform's campaign funding limits as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech (though the conservative U.S. Supreme Court might say otherwise, of course).
It seems to me that the First Amendment protects individuals by permitting them to say "what" they want without fear of repression or censorship, but it does not protect them on "how" they say it. Presently it appears that those with the most money — the wealthy, the big, rich corporations — have plenty of voice; in fact, perhaps too much of a voice that seems to push the legitimate freedom of speech of other less-fortunate Americans off into some netherworld.
It seems that without campaign finance reform we will continue to have no freedom of speech for "the people" at all and instead have to contend with a dialogue among the rich people on television stations whose networks gouge candidates for profits.
Campaign finance reform needs to be promoted as protecting the relevant, important concepts of freedom of speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect, in place of some fancy freedom to spend more and more money to monopolize the expression of speech for the rich few.
Tab L. Uno
Clearfield