Try reading the Citizen's United court opinion. I had your stance on the issue before I read their reasoning (it is absolutely worth the read), and I'm come to

Try reading the Citizen's United court opinion. I had your stance on the issue before I read their reasoning (it is absolutely worth the read), and I'm come to realize: 1. corporate campaign spending will likely not corrupt the political process 2. as we can see since the ruling, very very little independent expenditures are coming from corporations. it's still mostly rich people paying for the commercials, which is what it was like before 3. the FEC and the idea of these regulations are completely flawed 4. there is no way that these laws will scale passed TV and broadcasting, even though they purport to regulate speech online as well. 5. people should be exposed to as much speech as possible, and it should be assumed they can come to conclusions that fit within their interests. Especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult for campaigns to sway voters even with billions of dollars of speech. > Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. [...] Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. > Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf