<i>"For your claim to be true money must in some way be related to the ability to exercise free speech."</i><p>In a world where you have to pay for things, the ability to freely use your money is necessary for most rights.  Unless everyone can will themselves TV and radio time and wish pamphlets and websites into existence, restriction of spending for political speech is a questionable proposition at best.<p><i>"Consequently, an absolute interpretation of the 1st ammendment means taxation is a violation of free speech."</i><p>Yes, it would, though the neutrality of most taxation can be used to argue it as a benign one.  However, you're merely raising that as a strawman, as almost nobody cares about absolutist interpretations.<p><i>"Perhaps democracy is more important as well?"</i><p>Political speech has long been the type of speech jurists have been least willing to restrict <i>because</i> it is essential to democracy.  You might as well say, "Perhaps the right to live is more important than the right to oxygen."