O.k. so the supreme court of the united states has overturned a law which limited campaign contributions and spending by entities such as corporations and labor unions. This has been done under the guise of protecting their free speech.
Nevermind that these entities are legaly defined groups and aren't entitled to "rights" other than those granted by the laws which regulate their function, they are not individuals. Forget that because by reimposing that standard just leaves actual individuals with the means the ability to operate under the right of freedom of speech while unduely influencing the electoral process. There is another more salient point, and that is how this ruling robs the poor of their freedom of speech.
How is this accomplished? Well the freedom of speech is not absolute, it is realtive. What the currently defined standard represents is the equivalent of telling a poor person, "O.k. you can have the freedom of speech as long as when you decide to use it you stand in a wind tunnel with a sock in your mouth". Because the views of an individual become so drowned out by the sheet volume of other views. Entities or individuals of means are allowed a much larger voice than those of modest means. They may even hire people to speak their voice, so their views appear to be the views of many, when in fact they may be the views of a few. As most people have limited time to listen to viewpoints the potential audience becomes swamped, and the views of those of modest means are lost. The supreme court has therefore not empowered the freedom of speech, it has robbed the freedom of speech from hundreds of millions of people.
This is bad on a big picture macro level, but imagine the disastrous effects on local elections. If you have a large local industry it will be completely able to control local elections to their favor.
What might be the way to rectify this situation? Allow people to extend the availability of their viewpoints through means that are open to everyone. Having a book of your views published by an interested publisher is one way of doing this, having a vanity press print up 100,000 copies of a treatise on your views is not, being interviewed by a news outlet is one way, owning a news outlet and having it promote your views is not. This is a rough idea, and full of potential to be exploited, but it is far better than what is now about to happen.