So your issue wasn't with potential FEC overreach as you argued above, your issue is that you agree with the Citizen's United decision in whole, and are all about the floodgates being opened. We'll just have to disagree on that.

I think the two issues are inseparable (for better or for worse). The government required a great deal of power (in violation of the first amendment) to regulate and prevent express advocacy. The court had to strike down the laws as unconstitutional, to avoid allowing the government to put "prior restraints" on the freedom of speech. The only way to avoid this would have been to reach a narrower decision, based on an entirely different basis, but this could not be done once the 'prior restraint' issue had been raised.

I suppose that I simply do not understand why the ruling was so controversial; it does not make sense to me that General Motors could be restrained from publishing certain things, and that General Electric (which owned NBC at the time of CU v. FEC) would be allowed to publish whatever it wanted, because of its media exemption (as was the government's argument).