the law says you can unfairly manipulate and dominate a conversation by flooding it with bought and paid for propaganda and lies
No, the law said absolutely nothing about the content of the political speech. You know this, so saying that it was about "lies" is you: lying. The law said nothing about "dominating" a conversation, or "flooding" anything. That's you, lying.
What the law did say was that if you, yourself, personally, ran an ad in the local newspaper to say that, maybe, you think gay marriage shouldn't be illegal, and that congressional candidate (or party) X is wrong for saying it should be illegal ... YOU ARE NOW A FEDERAL FELON for having had that opinion printed. This is your idea of how the first amendment works? I know you'll say yes, because you've shown over and over again that you're willing to pretend the constitution says things that it doesn't, in order to allow you to support the government violating that charter.
Blah blah blah ... what's really amazing is that YOU are so naive that you actually think people aren't capable of reading the words of a law and seeing that you are deliberately, purposefully lying about it. How about this: YOU point out the actual words in McCain-Feingold that talk about the size, accuracy, cost, merit, or any other qualities of political speech, and we'll have something to talk about. YOU show how the law's baked-in violation of the Equal Protection clause wasn't being violated, and we'll have something to talk about. But you won't, because you know you can't.
Since you can't manage to defend your position on constitutional grounds, why not try this: propose a law that prevents people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics ... and which doesn't break the first amendment. Remember, the first amendment says that congress shall pass no law that abridges speech. So the law you want, which will stop people from speaking, has to pass that test. Please write down, here, the language of that law, and how it would work. If you don't, then you're showing yourself to be the disingenuous person you appear to be. Otherwise, admit that what you really want is for the first amendment to be altered. It's one of the other, you can't have it both ways.
OK, I'll save you the trouble: you can't write a law that uses government power to shut people up unless you violate the first amendment. So we get to what you really want: you want to trash the first amendment. Just admit it, you'll feel much better not having to pretend you mean something else, and knowing that everybody can see right through your little charade.