You clearly don't understand the origin of the Senate
More condescension. Lovely.
"let's censor them because their speech is causing Americans to believe things I don't want them to believe and act in a way I don't want them to act."
Is it your assertion that limiting the ability of the ultra rich to control media political discussion and control ads for political causes is that worthy of defense as compared to actual speech? In my view the practice is such a derivative form of speech as to recall the freedom of speech practiced by the state run media of China or Russia. Combined with quid pro quo campaign contributions, it's really out of hand. Personally I don't believe that giving money to a political campaign is speech. I don't believe that the coordination levels between super PACs and candidates is nearly restricted enough. And I don't believe that further restricting them should violate the Constitution or count as censorship.
And having looked at the "scholarship" you're alluding to, the methodology is pretty categorically godawful. It didn't look at actual public opinion, just how the authors classified the interests of different socioeconomic groups.
How about this. Study here: http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Funny how the "defense" of American democracy once again degrades to "but those stupid poor people are voting in ways I think are bad for them, I need to protect them from their own decision-making."
I just want honest information so voters can make educated decisions on what they want. I don't care what views they are, if they are factual and not misleading then I'm happy to have those ideas in the forum. I'm not happy about disruptive speech and mud slinging bullshit.