I'm curious about others' reaction to this.  For some reason, a deal
between two parties not to compete in a particular race doesn't trouble
me as much as a cash payment from one party to another to run sham
candidates.  The former seems more like a deal whereby the minority
party endorses one of the major party nominees rather than running their
own, which is of course a common enough practice.  The latter seems like
exactly the kind of big-spenders running amok situation that the BCRA is
aiming to remedy.

Are the two morally equivalent? If not, what's the key distinction?
Cash versus political logrolling as the consideration for the bargain?
Or promising not to run versus promising to field sham candidates? Or
both?