I can't say that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill is gutting freedom of speech. Then again, I'm not one of those people who believes that money equals speech. If anything you should be attacking it for violating freedom of the press, and the ability of the media to sell their air time as they so desire. Of course, anti-libel laws violate freedom of the press as well, but I don't think people would agree with the media being able to freely falsely accuse people of things (now they at least have to have some sort of truth they're bending out of shape).
I guess you just need to ask yourself two questions about the campaign finance reform laws: 1) How damaging is it to the ability of a politician to get his message out? And 2) Who does it hurt more? As far as I'm aware, it's not an unreasonable regulation, first amendment or no. Of course, I'd like to have a constitution written in such a way as having four of the nine supposed greatest legal minds of our country dissenting on a legal opinion would be a major cause for reconsideration, not something to be expected.
I like McCain; he's a moderate, neither left nor right. His immigration policies worry me, but with the modern system of elections if you let one or two issues out of a whole wide array of issues disqualify a candidate, it's highly unlikely you'll ever find a candidate to support. It's not the lesser of two evils, it's just realizing that nobody's perfect. Now if Party 1 is running Adolph Hitler and Party 2 is running Joe Stalin, that's the lesser of two evils (or "pick your poison" if you prefer), but I see a lot of people complaining about having to pick between Party 1's "70% policy match" vs Party 2's "40% policy match."