This is actually a very interesting argument.  This turns the normal argument on it's head.  Usually the thinking was money = speech, and if a company is a legal "person" then restricting contributions is restricting the speech of the company.<p>However, this is framed from the point of view of a hypothetical person (voter), not the company.  In this case, he is arguing that by restricting the speech of the company, we restrict the sources of information for a person (voter).<p>In other words, it isn't the act of restricting the speech of the company that is unlawful, but the limiting the ability of the voter to hear the speech that is unlawful.