McCutcheon lawyer slips up, admits the truth

See this post. When Dan Backer asked about free speech equaling money, the lead lawyer for McCutcheon said they are not synonymous. And yet that is the crux of the issue, that limiting one's monetary contribution is limiting one's free speech rights. He qualified it by admitting "money was a necessary tool to engage in political speech." So then those without money don't get to engage in political speech? And only those with money do? Which is exactly the effect of this ruling, and makes Backer's and the Supreme Corp's reasoning fallacious.