So to preserve democracy, we must sacrifice freedom of speech?
Later generations will look at it and will go "how was that even possible?"
If I didn't hear this so often in real life, I'd think it was a bad line in a cheesy dystopian movie.
Basically, as long as there is no physical limit to the number of voices that can be heard (as with broadcast television), and the barriers to entry are reasonably low (unlike with cable television, and possibly internet in the near future), then absolute freedom of speech works very well. Otherwise, all you're left with is propaganda under cover of freedom of speech, and it fucking sucks.
Plus, it depends if you define speech as "giving money to someone"
Would you ban:
An ad that promotes preserving a specific forest while there is a referendum about increasing environmental spending.
An ad that says the schools are falling apart and understaffed while an education millage is being voted on.
An ad that says you shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare while a candidate/party's platform is strongly tied to that policy.