Is money the same thing as political speech?

The Supreme Court has answered this question with a resounding "Yes." But look at the result. This describes the election of Congresspersons to the House of Representatives:

Nowadays, no matter where they are, over 90% of those who run tend to be re-elected (98% in 2004), thanks to gerrymandering and the ease with which those in power can raise money.From The Economist

My question is: Is money the same as speech, or is money the same as Power?

The clear experience of those who have more money when running for election is that they tend to defeat those with less money. To me, that suggests that money is power, not speech. Money wins because it allows those with money to shout down those with less money. The candidate with money can buy a megaphone, and those without equivalent megaphones cannot get heard. Thus the person with the megaphone gets elected - and since the incumbent has the ability to draw more money to himself than does his competitor without the power of office, he gets reelected.

The implication of this, to me at least, is that if you remove the ~power elements~ of money from elections then each person involved has an equal voice. The power of those ~equal~ voices then comes from the facts and ideas they express~, rather than the (purchased) volume with which they are shouted.

So how do you remove the megaphone of money from elections? Public financing of elections is the best option I am currently aware of.

Anyone know how public financing of elections is working in Arizona or Maine? Last I heard the system in Arizona was a winner.