I suppose a large number of Americans must support the free speech restrictions embodied in McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws, or they wouldn't have passed. The logic of such laws is apparently to reduce the influence of "big-monied interests" in elections, I suppose by being able to saturate media with their point of view.
So here is my question - have you ever met anyone (other than John Kerry with his Iraq vote) who thought that they had been duped or unduly influenced by election advertising? Have you met anyone who says "yep, I voted for the guy with the most ads instead of what I believed in?"
The fact is that I have never met such a person, even among those who support campaign speech restrictions. Their position is always that they are of course too smart to be gulled by the ads but "a lot of other people are not as smart". But who are these other people? They are like the friend of a friend who swears his grandmother put her cat in the microwave to dry it off. They don't exist. The fact is that no one thinks that they personally are unduly influenced by campaign ads, but they think everyone else is.
Here is a rule of thumb: When supporters of a law take the position that "This law is not necessary for me but for all those people who are not as smart as I am", it is a bad law.