There is an old fable about the bigger brother and younger brother. Mom asks the older brother, "did you like your dinner?", he replies, "I ate it all up". She then asks the little guy, "and did you like your dinner?", to which he replies, "he ate mine all up, too". Two meals, two boys. This is all too deep to be placed in the context of constitutional and human rights. Of course, the bigger brother can eat twice and, of course, he is not his brother's keeper, technically. And when Mom placed the two dinners before them, her instructions were probably vague. She certainly didn't have to say, "Now you eat your dinner, and you eat your dinner." She sinned by omission - but, hey, it's all about who gets to eat first, eat the most, and to hell with the little guy. In a free society that respects the right of the individual, eat as much as you can. Beside, little brother can go to the refrigerator, the cupboard, or a neighbor's house and scrounge for himself.
But that stinks, doesn't it? A billionaire can give as much now to campaigns as he or she chooses. Why not? They earned it, they can spend it. Do his huge contributions mean he will be heard? Placed on the top of the list? Have more influence? Sure, it's the same principle as having two dinners and screwing your little brother out of his. In the tradition of this nation's first Chief Justice John Jay, "those who own the country ought to rule the government". The Supreme Court is only upholding a legacy.
But the US is supposed to be about fairness, about equal opportunity, about ensuring that the playing field is level. I think this is the kind of democracy we want to export - not he who owns the most toys wins. If the latter is what we as a nation are all about, then why even bother having a Constitution at all? We should just carry around Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan as a guide.
Supreme Court to the Little Guy: you are on your own.