One other thing I think needs to be addressed, the argument that because some people have greater ability to spread their message than others, that it should be restricted in the name of fairness.
First, it’s not fair. There are many entities and individuals who can spread their message far and wide. If we limit the ability of some people who are capable of this while continuing to allow other people who are already doing it to continue to do so, then that is not fair, nor is it equal. Is Oprah Winfrey entitled to more privileges than the Kochs? Does Michael Moore have special rights that George Soros does not?
Secondly, the Constitution just doesn’t allow for the government to engage in this type of equalization, even were it possible. The government must treat everyone equally, not MAKE everyone equal. The founders were not ignorant of the fact that most people did not have easy access to the wonder of the time, the printing press. Yet they guaranteed freedom to use it in unlimited fashion, even though not everyone could do so. They would not restrict access to television or the internet either if they knew about it, even though not everyone can get on TV and not everyone has the talent to craft an awesome internet video that gets 10 million views. And I know there aren’t many calls to reduce internet advocacy yet, but that’s only because internet advocacy is still not in its mature stage. Once people start having “too much” influence on elections there will be calls to limit that influence as well.