Campaign and free speech in "Buckley v. Galeo"

So there is all this discussion about the 1971 and 1974 FECA regulations, but everyone glosses over the fact that many parts were deemed unconstitutional. Somehow it is seen that the nine justices made a mistake.
It seems that the general opinion is that we should trust the same politicians who collect funds to regulate themselves, and when the supreme court whose "permenant tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them." (Federalist 51, paragraph 4) says "sorry your rules are unconstitutional," we somehow think thats garbage.
I trust the Nine people debating in robes more than the hundreds in armpit-stained suits screaming for unconstitutional changes.


"It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates imposed by § 608 (e)(1)'s expenditure ceiling. But the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in [*49] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed "to secure 'the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,'" and "'to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'" New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 266, 269, quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945), and Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. at 484. The First Amendment's protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion"
(Buckley V. Galeo at 48, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=f20109136fe3e57c4a0d1af2f273171e&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVb&_md5=5eb75d78c87ceacc6ca3d0400d8a9164)

What does it require to communicate?
A message and a medium/channel for communication.
If we restrict either element, we restrict free speech.

Furthermore the court takes issue with enforcement.

Who is more likely afford the burden of accountants and record keepers, incumbents or incomers? And guess what was supposed to happen if the rules were violated, temporary removal from the ballot, based on a judement made by people appointed by the executive or legislative branch (I am confused by the courts view on this). How much do you trust Congress? Enough to give them power to remove names from the ballot? The winds of temporary excitement are often used to breakdown the foundations of liberty, you should thank the courts for making the right, albieght tough choice.