You misunderstand.  There is no side I disagree with.  The only thing I disagree with is using strict constructionist interpretations, whether such interpretations argue for or against campaign finance reform.  Similarly, I am opposed to literal interpretations of religious documents, independent of how I feel about the morals behind them.  I think rejection of absolute interpretations is an essential prerequisite to a constructive debate, which is why I bring it up.  You may look to the religious right in the United States for examples of the effectiveness of debates that do not reject absolute interpretation.