For your claim to be true money must in some way be related to the ability to exercise free speech. Consequently, an absolute interpretation of the 1st amendment means taxation is a violation of free speech. Time to abolish taxes, then?<p>In practice freedom of speech is a sliding scale. See the public school system. There we have determined that education of our youth is more important than absolute free speech. Perhaps democracy is more important as well?  We make these pragmatic decisions about the 1st amendment all the time.  The suggestion that it is an absolute is completely untenable.<p>Further, if you continue to adhere to a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution, will you make a public statement against hostile takeovers by shareholders?  The text of the thirteenth amendment reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."  If we really are treating corporations as people protected under the constitution, you shouldn't be able to take over a company against the management's wishes.<p>I hope I've made it clear that absolute interpretation of the constitution in this case is not a valid interpretation.  Regardless of the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, literally interpreting the 1st amendment is an invalid argument against the legislation.