Eugene Volokh writes at Instantman's site:

Seems to me that if someone who owns a newspaper can editorialize all he wants using his money, then others should be able to rent space in that newspaper (by buying an ad) using their money. And, of course, in the cyberspace age, aren't we all part of "the press"? How can the law sensibly distinguish the L.A. Times, a local business corporation (which has a Web page and a newsletter, and wants to rent time on television), and me?

Yes, I pointed this out a few weeks ago in this post. They want to eat their cake and have it, too. If you can purchase free speech rights by buying and owning a newspaper, why can't you do it by renting one? Why are existing media owners so uniquely privileged?

Even though many reform advocates don't get it, this is exactly why "money = speech," and it is the contradiction on which this horrible law will founder.