To be honest, I must confess that I missed the point of this article. According to the author, it all comes down to the question of whether money in politics is corrupting or "democracy enhancing." The Supreme Court argument is ridiculous, but it has the virtue of turning over the political system to the plutocrats, so it's treated as a debateable claim. Money enhances democracy only among the millionaire class. I mean any millionaire or billionaire can make his/her money speak in campaigns. The rest us--poor slobs and ordinary rubes--will just have to do with our plain old voices, as we try to make ourselves heard over the din of Fox news and the corporate media. Trump's argument that he is ubribeable because he is filthy rich has a certain logic. But in essence it's not much different from choosing the benign dictator over the malign one. You still get dictatorship. I object to the author calling Trump by his preferred nickname "The Donald," as though Trump is some kind of good guy, who warrants respect and affection. In reality, Trump is a full buffoon, a racist egomaniac, deserving of contempt. Trump is also a total sexist. He said harsh things about the look of Carly Fiorina. But look at Trump himself: has all the charm and beauty of a dried dog turd, with his pouty lips and bizrre orange hair. Trump is a disgrace to the human race. Enough said!