The Supreme Court has not actually decreed that someone who has a billion dollars is entitled to a billion votes but when analyzing the fruitfulness of their campaigns, they concentrate as much on the money as on the voters. If the analysts are right then maybe that opening line is not as far off the mark as it should be. And since the same Court guarantees anonymity to the funders of campaign ads, how do you know who is telling you things that you might actually believe? If there isn’t a signature line on the ad, you should discount what you are told exactly. The art of lying in ads is something taught as PR in all the business schools, and the billionaires get what they pay for. So unless you Know well who is jerking your strings, you should lump them all with the “Swift boat veterans” and drop their stories into the round file. What can be bought can be shaped to the purchasers’ liking, especially if they get to rely on your natural credulousness. When the Court makes no room for knowing who is counting on the voters’ good nature, and giving the PR hirelings free rein to hide their motivations, you must know that money talks, and the big bucks talk the loudest, just as if every billionaire had all those billions of extra votes.