In this case, the little guy is the poor billionaire who was hurt by rules allowing larger campaign contributions to be given to candidates who are facing people who are dipping into their own wealth for their campaigns:
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the amendment required "a candidate to choose between the 1st Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations."
Alito said that by attempting to level the playing field, Congress was in effect attempting to influence voters' choices.
"Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name," Alito wrote. "Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election."
Under the law, he said, those are judgments for voters alone.
In other words, if you are not an incumbent or a billionaire, the odds against you are astronomical. The justices in the majority may consider this to be protection of free speech. It seems apparent that it is protection of free speech for the wealthy.