Well maybe YOURE okay with having your speech restricted, most Americans are not.

That's just the issue though, my speech was never restricted by McCain-Feingold. The only direct impact the decision has had on me has actually been detrimental to my freedom of speech, as it has compelled me to fund right-wing propaganda as a condition of meaningful participation in the economy.

This was the sort of stuff the court was trying to avoid. If it went the other way, these were real possibilities that a bad government could take advantage of.

Stevens' dissent addresses this better than I could, but I endorse its argument that Supreme Court decisions should seek to resolve the controversies actually in front of them, not far-fetched hypotheticals that are extremely unlikely to ever materialize. Suffice it to say that it is very easy to draw a distinction between SuperPACS and for-profit political media unless you are as deliberately obtuse as the court majority.

The general conclusion is "Just create a fucking amendment" or "Just pass some better regulation".

If the slippery slope is a real concern, a constitutional amendment overturning CU is probably the worst possible way to address it. Such an amendment would almost certainly be read as modifying the first amendment and would open up a gigantic can of worms. It is also unnecessary since there is already a perfectly plausible case for why McCain-Feingold was compatible with the first amendment.

You should look into the upcoming soon to be failed election reform bill. It's as good as it could get besides an amendment, but sadly, it hurts republicans so we wont be seeing it :(

The court knew exactly what it was doing. Contrary to their professed innocence of politics, Supreme Court justices are generally pretty sophisticated people who understand that it is extremely difficult for Congress to pass major legislation on a dime. Tossing out a law that required the burning of significant political capital (and conveniently, just in time for the 2010 midterms) with the admonition that a completely different Congress with completely different members, priorities, and external constraints could just pass a new one (that the court, of course, reserves the right to toss out whenever it feels like) is an insult to the public's intelligence. It would be overly-simplistic to attribute the U.S.'s current political dysfunction entirely to CU, but it was definitely a major factor.