I disagree. I hope you are right.
I genuinely fail to see how that could be the case. How would you reconcile the Court's key campaign finance rulings of recent years, including this one, with a strike down of McCain-Feingold?
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics.
That's a fairly powerful statement; it's the very alleged essence of McCain-Feingold to accomplish just that task. Perhaps not the issue advocacy ads in particular, but the remainder of McCain-Feingold revolves about just that principle.
In 2001, the court ruled that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in 2000, the court voted to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
However, this 2001 ruling would appear to bear relevance on the issue advocacy limitations. It would seem to indicate that the Court will find a 1st Amendment right to issue advocacy ads, but permit some level of significant restriction to ensure that they're not at all coordinated with particular campaigns. It's an open question how the Court may seek to accomplish such a judgment.
I'm not at all confident that McCain-Feingold or any part of that will get struck down in a meaningful fashion.