But it is still one person one vote. Money doesn't allow you to buy votes, but it does make it easier to persuade them. Freedom of the press has always guaranteed you the right to print or otherwise publish what you want, but it never said everyone will have the same amount of printing presses or the same amount of ink. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you an audience.
You think you are reducing the influence of the rich, but you are actually just raising the price of entry. A millionaire can donate to a PAC and buy TV ads, but a billionaire can buy or start a newspaper, TV station, or social media network. What are you going to do then, tell the newspapers what they are allowed to print?
There's a fundamental difference between allowing an unlimited amount of opaque money to support arbitrary political campaigns and buying a media company.
The latter does business under its name, is regulated by the FCC, and if publicly traded has financial disclosure requirements.
The former is effectively anonymous, unregulated, and has no requirement to disclose any of its finances.
If folks want post-Citizens, fine -- just require public, transparent disclosure of what individuals are spending on political speech, above a floor ($10,000?).
You think you are reducing the influence of the rich, but you are actually just raising the price of entry. A millionaire can donate to a PAC and buy TV ads, but a billionaire can buy or start a newspaper, TV station, or social media network. What are you going to do then, tell the newspapers what they are allowed to print?