Odd that your tagline references the Constitution, yet you don't seem to understand it very well.
Money must equal free speech, or there is no free speech at all.
Let's examine a hypothetical. We've got two guys, Stu and Hank, who both want to run for mayor. Both of them announce their intention and do a few rubber-chicken dinners in pursuit of this goal.
Hank decides that's not reaching enough people, so he takes out an ad in the paper and distributes flyers throughout the city. Stu sees that this is reaching people and counters with radio ads. Hank responds with TV ads.
And so on. At what point does who, and under what authority, decide that Stu and Hank can't spend any more money on the campaign? How do you propose to limit the speech of newspaper writers, TV anchors, the guy on the street who talks up one candidate over another?
Just because I can buy a printing press and you can't doesn't mean I can't use it in support of a candidate I support. To believe otherwise would logically either a.) force me to not use my printing press or b.) buy you one as well (where does that money come from?).
Money enables free speech. You can shout in the woods all you want but it won't be very effective. You can print a million flyers and be more effective. One requires money.