I'm a private company (or private billionaire). I like your opponent. I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation?

And while it isn't giving that politician money, there are plenty who will recognize that my paying for their add is giving them a service that is worth money. It isn't quite as direct as donating, but the effect is the same.

>I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation?

How can we even decide whether an ad is for some candidate? If it doesn't mention them by name, but is plainly obviously talking about them, would that still count? What if it's less obvious? What if it doesn't have anything to do with the candidate, but promotes some policy that the candidate also happens to support? All seem to fall under the category of 'giving them a service that is worth money'.

I'd impose a 72 hour pre-election silence to give the public time to process all the campaign noise.

I believe such a ban would be in keeping with existing reasonable constraints on free speech, and help contextualize paid messaging in general.

What is the test for reasonable constraints on free speech? And what will be the penalty for breaking the ban? If it is just a fine, you have basically just made it so the rich can pay more to have a stronger voice. If it is jail time... well we already know how well the legal system goes after the rich. A law would benefit those who have the power to break it while harming those weaker.

There is a substantial body of case law to consult when deciding reasonable constraints on free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_...

Reading some of the cases, especially the ones where the court has yet to directly rule otherwise on, are quite chilling in their potential application.