What we have here appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion of what "free speech" means, and it's the old distinction between a negative and a positive right.

From your post, you appear to believe that "free speech" is basically a government program, and that the government should be aggressively regulating the "speech" market to ensure "fair" representation in that marketplace. Your post reflects this -- the anti-HRC ad is demonizing and run too close to the election; NBC doesn't talk enough about the pernicious influence of the military-industrial complex; Fox News is unfairly pursuing a Republican agenda. Your post suggests that these evils call for government regulation

Our government, though, is based upon the idea that power corrupts. Once in power, a person or faction will attempt to use the machinery of government to remain in power. That's why power is divided between different branches of the federal government and why it was supposed to be divided between state and federal governments. Free speech is intended to further limit the corrupting effets of power, by creating a "hands-off" zone for discussions of political and electoral issues.

As such, free speech is better understood as a negative right. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Free speech means the government cannot punish or limit you from expressing your opinion. There's no comparitive element to it. Your free speech isn't infringed upon when someone else has a bigger audience or easier access to tv.

Moreover, I don't buy that access to the marketplace is as closed off as you make it. An individual's ability today to reach a mass audience is unparalleled in history.