Here it is in a nutshell: Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and SCOTUS affirmed it. What is the point of the law? Reduce it to its lowest common denominator: Money corrupts men who would be elected leaders. So pass a law about prohibiting money that actually stops free speech. Don't address the corrupt men who inhabit the halls of government, attack the object, money. Holy Crap, how stupid. The Constitution prohibits the abridgement of free speech the same as it prohibits the infringement of keeping and bearing arms.
I disagree with the McCain-Feingold law and so should everyone on this forum. Reason: We don't believe firearms kill people. We believe people kill people and sometimes they use firearms.
Therefore the money does not corrupt the men. The men are already corrupt or are willing to be corrupted. So, according to this law, if you shut off the money (take away the guns) there will be no more corruption (crime). Yeah, Right!!
If you believe taking firearms away from honest people will stop crime and killing, the you should believe that taking money out of the political venue (and stoping the ability to publicy, as a group, rebut BS) will stop corruption in politics.
This law is crap and anyone connected to it is an enemy of freedom. period. There can be no difference of opinion as any other opinion is wrong. We either have free speech or we don't when it comes to the political venue. This is not about yelling fire in a theatre. Well maybe it is, but if the building is burning, is it then a crime?
Anybody ought to be able to spend every penny he has in the pursuit of whatever he chooses, politicaly, in our free society. It just should be done in the light of day, not the darkness. The answer is full disclosure or prision, period. How simple is that!