I see.

First of all, money is not speech. Money is a mechanism which facilitates trade between people and entities. If money and speech were equivalent, then I would be able to pay my mortage with words....somehow I don't see that working out. 

Nothing is hindered by having contribution limits other than the purchasing power of both these candidates and the donors who seek to purchase them. A candidate can still get his message out to as many people as he wants to, he just may have to work harder at it.

Secondly, this is all really just pomp and circumstance anyway, and in reality the contribution limit is just an ornament attached to the political process, meant to convey the appearance of fairness and respectability, but really accomplishing nothing substantive. Does anybody feel that the current political process is not corrupted with contribution limits where they are now? If you're paying attention, it's pretty obvious who our "representatives" are representing. It isn't us.