Re: secret funding of campaigns, it seems to me the real problem isn't that people can freely run political ads. The real problem is $1bn+ corporations. People should be lobbying to get rid of corporate limited liability, which would make it impossible for corporations to get so large and powerful in the first place.
You seem to be getting down-voted. Sorry to see that.
My understanding is that SCOTUS could have OK'ed the particular instance (the film "Hillary") without broadly declaring money == speech and providing cover for PACs and super-PACs to keep their list of contributors secret.
I tried to find some links to backup/illuminate this, but I could not, and I may be wrong in my understanding of the actual details of the ruling.
Regarding corporations: My problem is not their size, but that money yields such political influence.
I loath the idea of limiting speech (modulo falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.) but when I read that the best predictor of election outcomes is looking at who spent the most money, I despair.
The best way I can come to terms with one possible solution is to consider that accepting democracy means you're already accepting assorted restrictions on your behavior. The idea of having to make your donors public in political speech, while distasteful, seems a reasonable way to help combat (or reduce) the influence of big money.
Given the nature of mass media and how people get information it's hard to have a properly functioning democracy when people are bombarded with propaganda, and attempts to counter that propaganda (even with other propaganda) require vast finances.
At the very least let people spend as much as they want on political ads but make the source of that money is public.
The idea that foreign governments can secretly fund a massive Presidential campaign does not strike me as the intention of the First Amendment.