for active government management of the public's ``attention.'' To Sunstein, and to many similar academic advocates of speech-management through campaign finance reform, what is important about the First Amendment is not its text but the ``values'' they say the amendment represents. They say those values--vigorous debate; deliberative democracy; political heterodoxy--require that the amendment's text be ignored as an anachronism that modern life (the Internet, the costs of campaigning in the age of broadcasting, etc.) has rendered inimical to the amendment's values. Politicians who, in the name of campaign finance reform, favor increased government supervision of political communication are not motivated by such recondite reasoning. They simply want to tilt the system even more toward the protection of incumbents, or of their ideological interests, or of their ability to control their campaigns by controlling the ability of others to intervene in the political discourse. However, campaign finance reformers depend on academic theories about why it is acceptable to act as though the First Amendment does not mean what it says.