If anything, candidates that are backed by super PACS become puppets of special interest, and therefore lose freedom of speech. Candidates who do not receive funds through super PACS are not bound to any sort of political agenda.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. I am disagreeing on the following:
There does not seem to be a way to limit the actions of a *non-coordinating* super PAC without impeding on the first amendment. You're allowed to speak about a politician. You're allowed to buy an ad. Why not both?
The First Amendment is regulated all the time (for instance, threats, bribery and profanity in advertising are outlawed). Because the super PAC besmirches the nature of American democracy, they should be regulated.
You can absolutely dictate what people don't spend their money on. According to your logic, the government outlawing bribery is immoral; Bribery is not always aggressive, and therefore, by your standards, it is immoral for the government to outlaw it.