> Letting mega-billionaires spend mega-millions to buy the conversation around elections isn't my definition of freedom.

Spell out the details: Exactly who will not be permitted to speak under your definition of "freedom"?

If you say that only people with a billion dollars can be punished for speaking: Do you think the limit won't be lowered over time?

If the issue is that no person should be able to spend more than N million dollars in one "conversation", how do you allocate broadcast licenses when the price in an auction would be more than N million?

Which people do you allow to work together for their political goals then, oh grand hacker?

Do you understand the basics of a free society, which include freedom of association? You don't have much of a democracy left if you remove that.