There is risk in any system. I prefer the risk of money to the risk of state-rationed political speech.I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.
And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.
And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.