<x-flowed>Somewhere along the way this issue became misframed as a free speech issue. It should be framed as a free press issue, with the donor contracting with the candidate or his campaign to publish a message (which is where free speech comes in) that the candidate should be elected, or his opponent defeated. It would be no different than contracting with a PR firm to do the same thing as an independent expenditure. The question is, why should it make a difference that the publicity agency happens to also be the candidate's campaign organization.

Of course, there is also a problem that there is no authority for any of this under the Constitution, which only authorizes pre-emptive regulation of the time, manner, and place of congressional elections, and, if the 14th Amendment is considered ratified, arguendo, that voters have their rights to vote equally protected.

There is also no authority to prosecute anyone for bribery, fraud, or intimidation outside the territory of federal enclaves established under U.S.Const. Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17.