Money talks.

But does it deserve to say whatever it wants?

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided it does. CBS ... hasn't.

The Supremes voted 5-4 to overturn limits on how much money corporations and unions can pour into political campaigns. In the opinion Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the case is framed as a pure question of free speech:

"The (First) Amendment is written in terms of 'speech,' not speakers," Kennedy argued. "Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals."

But then there are the people who live in the real world, where corporate entities aren't assumed to share the same rights as citizens. We shall call them "the guys who lost," and they include Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Stevens drafted a 90-page dissent, but the rational person's objection to the ruling is summed up in just a few sentences:

"The distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant," Stevens wrote. "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."

But money talks.

Political speech is, of course, protected differently and more strenuously than advertising speech, but the Supreme Court's decision happened shortly before a different, but very similar, scrum about speech.

I speak, of course, of CBS and SuperBowl advertising.

Pro-choice groups mobilized after they learned that CBS will air a "Celebrate family, celebrate life" ad produced by the Rev. James Dobson's group, Focus on the Family, starring Tim Tebow and his mom.

Football fans everywhere are probably pleased that Pam Tebow defied doctors in 1987 — and obeyed Filippino law that outlaws abortion in all cases — and did not end the pregnancy that produced a future Heisman Trophy winner.

According to various news reports, most fans are less thrilled at the prospect of an advocacy ad campaign interrupting their eTrade and beer commercials; abortion politics doesn’t mix well with cheerleaders and cheese dip.

The disgruntled fans aren’t alone. Pro-choice and women’s rights groups have asked CBS not to air the ad.

They have some grounds for vexation.

Before it decided to chuck its no-advocacy-ads policy, CBS rejected a similar feel-good ad for the Unitarian Universalist Church, which wanted to let people know that it welcomes gay congregants. The parallels are striking: A religious group with an inclusive message — not an attack — is willing to pony up to spread the word. (Super Bowl ads run about $2.5 million for 30 seconds.)

Unlike many of my fellow feminists, I don’t have a hate on for Focus on the Family. My parents are Dobson fans and we had more than a few of his books on the shelves when I was a kid. I’m a Christian and a lot of what Focus on the Family does makes sense to me. As a capitalist, I can even admire their means of achieving their end.

But I don’t have to admire CBS.

The UUC had the cash for its ad, too, just not the support of the network.

So, in that case, dollars didn’t equal speech at all.

Is that fair? Speech is, after all, speech. And so, apparently is cold cash. And if there was ever an argument that corporations resemble citizens — in all of our stubbornness, inconsistency and entrenched biases — I guess CBS is making it.

Money talks.

Sometimes what it says — and what that says about us — is obscene.

Editorial page editor Betsy O’Donovan can be reached at 919-419-6675 or eodonovan@heraldsun.com.