The thing aout this is that the SCOTUS has made a decree which does protect a freedom which would have been otherwise curtailed as a side-effect of an effort to constrain campaign funding and abuse.
There is nothing wrong with curtailing campaign abuse. The mechanism to do so must be in defining the offense so clearly that laws formed against it do not tread on the toes of more fundamental principles.
As long as the Federal code cleaves to the "corporation rights = human rights" doctrine, this will be very difficult. That is the key. This is a conflation which has limited, not unlimited applicability, but the SCOTUS has declined to define those limits; it is [properly the business of congress.
We need one of several possible remedies:
1. Corporations are better defined and their rights derfined much more narrowly than those of individuals
2. Offenses of falsified, distortive calumny, vilification, slander (for spoken words), and libel (published in print) are more precisely defined and made actionable in such a way that the definitions do not chill free speech.
3. Laws governing electioneering as special communications subject to certain constraints are formed. This is the weakest approach since it is theone SCOTUS just shot down and the most antagonistic to the broadest insurance of the First Amendment.
And possibly others. I am a bear of limited imagination in such matters.