Equal participation is a prerequisite for free and open public debate. You have been so abusive in the way you have put your point that many have withdrawn from the debate altogether. But it is here that the analysis encounters some problems. Professor Fiss does not take the easy way out by claiming that hate speech, pornography, and campaign finance are not speech and, thus, are not deserving of any First Amendment protection. Rather, the author finds all three types of expression speech and worthy of some protection.
Campaign finance is speech.
The instruments needed to take the message to the public are equally expressive as the message itself. Nonetheless, he proposes regulation. In hate speech, pornography, and campaign finance, the threat to freedom coming from speech is that the speech will make it impossible for disadvantaged groups even to participate in the discussion. Those who are supposed to respond cannot. When the state regulates these areas, equality is a dominant factor.