I beg to differ. I fully agree with the courts on this. There is many reasons why money can be political speech, and this is a good one. As you should know, anyone can volunteer for a political campaign, they can literally donate an unlimited amount of time volunteering. However, there are a lot of people out there that can't donate any time, but can donate money.

Let's say there are two hypothetical people, person A, and person B.

Person B works a part time job at $8 an hour, and decides he like a candidate, and has free time, so he volunteers for that persons campaign. He spends a few hours every night calling people, and going door to door spreading the word. Over the course of the campaign, lets say he donates 100 hours. In all sense, that person donated $800 worth of time to a campaign.

Person B works a full time job at $8 an hour, and has to take care of her kids. Person B really like this other candidate, but has no time to donate to their cause, so she decides to donate $800 so they can buy ads, or pay materials to better help the campaign. But, they can't do that, as it would be above the limits.

Why does Person A get more of a political voice that Person B? Just because you only have money and not time to donate to campaigns, doesn't mean you get less of a political voice than someone than someone who may not have money, but all the time in the world to campaign.

This also has far more impacts. Say you're a video editor, you make $5,000 for making a 30 second spot. You you decide to make a campaign ad for your politician or cause in your free time. Under the law, this would be considered a campaign contribution, and depending on the limits, you could have just violated these laws.

Political speech is one of the freest forms of speech we should have. The government doesn't get to decide who's voice is the loudest, but must give everyone the equal chance at free speech in the eyes of the law. This is literally about free speech, and it's something that the court got right.