It was about a bit more than the pretext, the Justices' attempts at legal arguments to justify the ruling were absolutely horrifying, and the effects of the ruling have been disastrous given that it's effectively equated money with speech, permitting some citizens be more equal than others.
1. Some are taller
2. Some are journalists
3. Some have lots of free time
4. Some are famous
5. Some own printing presses
6. Some are politicians
7. Some are beautiful
8. Some are rich
9. Some are retired
...
I can't see how that's wrong at all. The wealthiest will always have more influence, but deliberately granting the wealthy more political influence is profoundly contrary to the principles of governance for a democratic society - it's naked plutocracy.
The American way is political equality, regardless of other factors including wealth.
If documentation doesn't match behavior, and you're not going to change the behavior, change the documentation.
(Shrug) The Internet has fixed that.
I think it'd be better to fix the rules than design them to encourage things detrimental to society. We'd be better off undoing Reagan's damaging removal of the Fairness Doctrine from the FCC (which had helped fix the media issues you noted before it was gutted), than just writing rules to make plutocracy our official policy.