I think you mistook the meaning of 'money talks' or you are slowly being assimilated by your liberal friends.
rays:
No, but money IS a part of speech. This is just common sense - I can donate time, talent, or money. If I like a candidate, I can support that candidate by volunteering to do work (time and/or talent), or I can pay to have that candidate get his/her ideas out (money). All of those things are a form of speaking to my support of the candidate.
This has been adjudicated and accepted for many decades.
When someone wants to say that money doesn't talk, then why would we be concerned if someone buys a politician - the money wouldn't say anything to the politician, because money DOESN'T talk. Of course money talks - whether it is to convince a politician to vote a given way or convince a citizen to vote a certain way.
The question is, who is responsible for doing an action - the person doing the action, or the person paying for the action? A great way for a politician to not be bought is to take the money and do the thing the constituents want regardless. A great way for a voter to decide for whom to vote is to see all the ads, weigh all the issues and actions taken by the candidate, and make a choice for themselves.
If money decides (not talks), then we can just have popularity contests where dollars are used as votes instead of voters. We don't have that yet, so Vrai is wrong on this one.