well, it was at least in some debate until Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which basically said free speech was equivalent to cash yes.  but you've got a freaking JD, so you know that.  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

So the right to assemble to petition for redress ensures that the wealthy remain powerful? Somehow, I missed that in reading the coverage of the various demonstrations over the last couple of months for those who feel the current politics concerning immigration is not something they can simply ignore.

What I will grant you is that most Americans (excepting those recent and illegal immigrants) are far too lazy to care about anything but their comforts, which are draining away anyways.

Personally, I find this money=power equation a touch too simplistic in any political system which allows for the change of government without revolution and blood in the streets. Unless you think FDR and his various approaches to government during the Great Depression were just another example of the rich retaining power (I may add, the rich of the time would not have agreed with you - it has taken them generations to roll back Roosevelt's reforms).  

But as we all know, the most dominant voting block in American is the non-voter. I am not sure what that has to do with 1st Amendment rights, but it is certainly a sign of the sort of decay that anyone looking at democracy as a political system considers to be one of the incurable weaknesses which eventually destroys democracy. The founders of America read a lot of history, and the fact that the system they constructed has lasted a couple of centuries is proof that they understood much about democracy's fatal flaws - no one else at the time expected more than a few years.

But America has always been about the rich having power - didn't you learn that in history in school? Maybe coming from Virginia, these things are handled more honestly than other places - none of the Virginian Founding Fathers were of modest means - and their taste in plantations remains heads and shoulders above everyone else's, in my humble opinion.

At the end of the day you can always have a revolution.

Political solutions are always possible, given the will.

This long bit is regards the wealthy will control:

Narco-Dollars for Dummies

"Sam and Dave Do Boat Loads
of White Agricultural Substances

Okay, let's start at ground zero. It is 1947, and World War II is over. America is ready to go back to work to build the corporate economy. We are in New Orleans on the docks.

Two boats pull into the docks. The first boat is full of a white agricultural product grown in Latin America called sugar. The owner of the cargo, lets call him Sam, sells his boat load of white agricultural substance to the sugar wholesaler on the docks for how much money?

[...]

Back on the docks, the second boat---an exact replica of the boat carrying Sam's sugar---is a boat carrying Dave's white agricultural product called drugs. [...]

Dave the drug man has a much bigger "cash profit per boat" than Sam the sugar man. Part of that is, of course, once Dave has set up his money laundering schemes, even after a 4-10 percent take for the money laundering fees, it's fair to say his tax rate of 0 percent is lower than Sam's tax rate. While it is expensive to set up all the many schemes Dave might use to launder his money, once you do it you can save a lot avoiding some or all of the IRS's take.

Look at your estimate of Sam and Dave's sales and profits. Now answer for yourself the following questions.

Who is going to get laid more, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to be more popular with the local bankers, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to have a bigger stock market portfolio with a large investment house, Sam or Dave?

Who is going to donate more money to political campaigns, Sam or Dave?

Whose wife is going to be bigger in the local charities, Sam or Dave's?

Whose companies will have more prestigous law firms on retainer, Sam or Dave's?

Who is going to buy the other's company first, Sam or Dave? Is Dave the drug man going to buy Sam the sugar man's company, or is Sam the sugar man going to buy Dave the drug man's company?

When they want to buy the other's company, will the bankers, lawyers and investment houses and politicians back Sam the sugar man or Dave the drug man?

Whose son or grandson has a better chance of getting into Harvard or getting a job offer at Goldman Sachs, Sam or Dave's?

[...]

Let's say that every year from 1947 through 2001, that the cash flow sales available for reinvestment from drug profits grew by $3 billion a year, throwing off that number times BIG PERCENT. Okay, assume that the reinvested profit grew at the compound growth rate of the Standard & Poor's 500 as it got reinvested along the way.

That amount is an estimate for the equity owned and controlled by those who have profited in the drug trade. Total narco dollars. How much money is that? I made an Excel spread-sheet once to estimate total narco capital in the economy.

My numbers showed` that Dave the drug man had bought up not only Sam's companies, but ---if you throw in other organized crime cash flows----a controlling position in about most everything on the New York Stock Exchange."

Second, ... - an inability to recognize that cherished institutions, which may have served a society well in the past, can be inadequate in dealing with new crises.

zero7,
  You are correct to point the finger of blame at "cherished institutions". It is not the US Constitution at work here, but rather Adam Smith's Invisible hand, our undaunted belief in the American Dream and our blind chase after personal profit.

Peak Oil is an example of market failure. The Market says keep using oil until something more effective and cheaper comes along. There is nothing more effective. Therefore the tunnel vision formula reduces to "keep using oil". We will keep using it until we can no longer extract it economically from the ground and then that will be that.

When the markets fail, government must step in to take corrective action. Our current administration is in deep denial that Markets can ever fail. That is why they refuse to step in.

Nixon was an uber-capitalist and ultra-commie basher. Yet Nixon imposed price controls. Nixon made buddy buddy with Red China. He realized that the dogma he had been worshipping all his life was a pack of bullsh*t and he changed. Maybe he was a crook, but he was not a stupid crook.

The new Republicans, on the other hand, will never change. They are too dug into their extremist views to change. It is too much against their "free markets" religion to change. They are too stupid to see that the "free markets" movement is heading us straight over the cliff to that Wal-Mart in the sky, and SUV-in-every-garage, after life.

Speaking of Republicans, did anyone catch the latest Roscoe Bartlett show on CSPAN tonight?

At least his charts are getting better.
Now he has to work on delivery.

There was no emotion.
He still doesn't get it that his fellow creatures (a.k.a. humans) are emotion-driven, irrational animals who will stampede in response to an impassioned speech about God and Country --even if there is no rationale to it--  but will yawn in the face of dry didactics --even if our very lives depend on our paying attention.