The press release above links to a "Section by Section and FAQ" document.

Isn’t spending money in elections a form of free speech? Why shouldn’t corporations and billionaires be able to spend unlimited amounts to influence our elections?

If rulings like Citizens United strengthened the First Amendment, then our government would be more and not less responsive to the American people. Instead, Congress has become less responsive to the priorities of the American people and unable to pass laws supported by the overwhelming majority of voters – from closing loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas to raising the minimum wage.

Sensible limits on spending in our elections do not disenfranchise anyone, but elevate the First Amendment rights of everyone to be heard in our democratic process. When moneyed special interests can buy unlimited influence in our elections, the democratic principle of “one voice, one vote” is degraded. The concept of political equality – the idea in which every American is equal in their right to vote regardless of their background or wealth – has guided our democracy throughout history as we expanded the right to vote, banned poll taxes, outlawed direct corporate giving to candidates, and fought government corruption.

Free speech comes at too high a price when 32 mega-rich individuals can spend $9 million each and easily outspend the $310 million donated by millions of ordinary Americans to each of the presidential campaigns in 2012. Each of the presidential election cycles since Citizens United broke spending records; $6.3 billion in 2012, $6.9 billion in 2016, and $14 billion in 2020. Our Constitution created a representative democracy—members of Congress were meant to go to Washington to represent the constituents of their district or state, not those who threatened to spend money against them if they did not vote a certain way

[teddeutch.house.gov]