The biggest threat to Citizens United --Montana AG explains why

[Zorra]

5. Thanks, really great info.

You are going to be standing, potentially, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and somebody like Justice Scalia is going to say: “Mr. Bullock, don’t you agree that money is speech? After all, we have precedent on the books in Buckley v. Valeo stating that money is speech. So how can you defend what Montana is doing, and how can other states defend similar bans on corporate money?” What will you say?

I think what we can say is that even if money is equated to speech, that that doesn’t mean you can’t demonstrate compelling state interests that allow you to put some restrictions on speech. Just like you can’t yell “fire!” in a movie theater, there are state interests in making sure that that speech has some limitations. And that’s what our Montana Supreme Court stated is that we have compelling interests in the integrity of the election process. We have a compelling interest in encouraging full participation.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/the_biggest_threat_to_citizens_united/singleton/

Although I don't agree that money is speech, the fact that this is a precedent makes it necessary to argue from this perspective, I suppose. And it's a good argument.

Buckley vs. Valeo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo