Clearly we need to eliminate insofar as possible the too great influence of special interest money in financing any and all elections. To date, the only related laws are quite inadequate. The problem is that there are four highly used conduits for special interest money (so-called soft money for” party-building”, “issue ads”, PACs, and bundling, each of which has some valid public interest uses), but any regulation has been treated as a violation of free speech by opponents of regulation.

It is obvious that the democratic process is subverted when those with access to wealth can vastly out-purchase any others’ access to or “speech” through any mass media or electioneering medium and thus “out-speak and out-influence” others seeking public support.

That is not truly free speech, it is an undemocratic denial of equally free speech (in both elections and in seeking public support on legislation). The only question is how to prevent it in the public interest.
Reasonable and equal absolute limits on total spending for each candidate (or advocacy of any legislation widely debated publicly) could by law be set by government election commissions and allocated by each candidate (or legislative originator for legislation) to different media.

Finally, there must be a certain and equal amount of free time provided by the mass media to each candidate to adequately make his or her case for election, else the media are unwarrantedly profiting from performing a necessary public function which requires the use of media (the rights to use which were usually free to the owners in the beginning).