&#62; The ruling isn't really about speech, though, it's about money.<p>Its about money spent on speech. Free speech that you can't spend money on, isn't free speech. If a news paper was told that it was welcome to print a specific story, except you can't spend money on ink for it, it'd still be censorship.<p>&#62; spend its money on political candidates, with a clear expectation of a positive ROI. How can that possible be legal<p>It's not, that's corruption. What you're referring to is rent-seeking, and it's been around as long as politics itself. The best solution is to give politicians less power, simply because there's less rent to seek.