About the analogy; I did not make it up. Plus, there are not "petty" results from "free and unrestricted" financing of campaigns. With unlimited financing allowed, a plutocracy of a few rich organizations could fund a campaign devoted to the plutocratic interest, instead of the public interest, which is why we have elections.
Politicians are supposed to represent us all. However, I have two main reasons why campaigns with unlimited campaign finance is a bad policy:
Imagine that Newt Gingrich was selected as the GOP nominee. He is for very low taxes for corporations especially compared to now, and Newt also favors abolishing the capital gains/ dividends tax. These are two pillars of arch-conservative thought. The corporate profits for the USA were over $1.6 trillion recently. Since Newt would almost certainly be a "god" to them compared to Obama, corporations could give all they wanted to Newt's campaign, because they would see it as an investment. Even if corporations spent just 1% of their profits on Newt, just 1%, they would outspend Obama's 2008 amount by over 22 times. It is corrupt to think that a private interest should rule a nation instead of the national interest, aka common good.
When an organization can give almost unlimited amounts to campaigns, it is similar to bribery. If you consider spending speech, then you consider it perfectly acceptable to speak to politicians. Whoever, if spending is speech, instead of a form of exchange, then a corporation could speak to politicians by speaking to them by money. This is bribery.
: Money or favor given in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.
Spending as free speech would find bribery acceptable. This is violating the values of equality and fairness. You may counter that spending by corporations is not making politicians follow a promise. However, it would be extremely naive to believe that campaign financing is not intended to do just that-namely to influence behavior by providing money and support.
: Spending money is seen as free speech. This doesn't mean it should be without limits. This is similar to yelling "fire" in a theater, yelling fire is seriously disrupting to a theater. Spending unlimited amounts is seriously disrupting to a nation's political system as I have shown. It makes the representation of corporations, whom is not a person, but is just an entity, much higher than average person.
To use an analogy, it is on par with having a public discussion in which the people controlling corporations are allowed to use sound systems up on the stage and individuals are expected to try to shout out their views from the crowd.
"If you live long enough, you make mistakes. But if you learn from those mistakes, you'll be a better person." - Bill Clinton
"A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." - Milton Friedman
"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency." - Paul Ryan