Money Isn't Speech
Dean
Professor Volokh notes that it's wrong to say that money is speech.
Of course money isn't speech. But it is an abridgement of free speech to try to limit what you spend on speech. And he makes the point very well: would a law which limits doctors to charging no more than $2.00 for any abortion or abortion-related services be a restriction on abortions? Yes. But this doesn't mean "money is abortion."
Would a law which limits how much you're allowed to spend on gasoline or airline tickets inherently harm your right to travel? Would a law limiting how much you're allowed to spend for your education inherently limit your ability to get an education? That doesn't mean "money is travel" or "money is education," either.
Money isn't speech, but laws limiting what you spend on speech are inherently un-American and a direct assault on the First Amendment. This is why campaign finance "reform" laws have to be resisted, as strongly as possible. Laws against bribery or quid-pro-quo arrangements in politics are fine; limiting political donations or what you can spend on political advertising are evil.
Besides, such laws are stupid on their face. They're based on the false belief that he who spends the most money wins the election. That's not true now and never has been true. What you need in politics is enough money to mount a credible campaign, to get your message out to the voters. Anything beyond that is gravy and can actually be harmful.
All these laws limiting campaign donations do is protect incumbents by making it much harder to raise sufficient funds to mount a credible campaign. The incumbent already has a thick rolodex full of supporters who'll donate money to his campaign; the challenger rarely does.
Campaign finance "reform" has been a disaster for America. It's time to abolish these laws.
The entire notion that money wins elections is predicated on the notion that voters are brainwashed by campaign ads. It's of the same mentality that says people only eat at McDonald's because we see the commercials, not because we like Big Macs. So we only vote for candidate X because we saw his commercial Y times. It's ridiculous.
Money helps.
I suspect the (D) behind his name helped as much as the money in New Jersey. Not saying the money was irrelevant, but...
"Money is speech" is, sadly, the only rational answers to those who justify their actions by saying "Money isn't speech." By the time you get "Money is a symbolic exchange medium that enables your speech to be heard by a wider audience" out of your mouth, the speech-restricting zealot has already finished his victory lap. You have to say "Money is speech" to get the ball back in your court. When he says, "No, it's not," that opens the door to your more careful answer.
And besides, money really is a symbol first and foremost, representing a good or service that has been performed or may be purchased. So why can't it symbolize speech? (Full disclosure: I get paid to make presentations and teach classes to programmers, which is a form of speech, so I have a somewhat interested view here.)
That Corzine would win in a solidly Democratic state is hardly surprising. But no amount of "Vote for Corzine" and Corzine commercials would have sold him to New Jersey voters if they did not like him or his stances.