Campaign Financing has been a big issue in this county since I was a kid. The Supreme Court has been gradually whittling away at any limitations and I think this case finally calls a spade a spade. You "may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others."
To my mind, it is time to try another approach. The Supreme Court consistently allows for "reasonable time, place, and manner" exceptions to our freedoms. Certainly they have been applied to other freedom of speech issues. What if we say that we are not complaining about the money, but the unreasonable use of it. A 30 second sound bite, aired over and over and over, adds NOTHING toward the voter who is trying his/her best to hear the issues. It is simply noise that drowns out all attempts at honest communication. It discourages rather than encourages voter participation because you just get tired of the meaningless drival and the endless repetition. What about a minimum length to political ads, and a maximum repeat of any one tape in the same venue? The Supreme Court insists that the whole point of free speech is to have an open discussion of all points of view. A monopoly of the communication channel destroys that goal. Just a thought.