"Something as simple as posting about a local candidate on your personal blog could have been considered a campaign contribution in kind, falling under the regulation and restrictions of said law."

[citation needed]. People have always been able to speak out in favor of their preferred candidates - that's what free speech is about. AFAIUI, the recent SCOTUS decision concerned:

1. What happens when there was an exchange of money for political speech on behalf of a third party, eg. paying someone for advertisements.

2. What happens when the "person" paying that money is not a person, but a corporation.

There's a big difference between somebody speaking out on their own and somebody paying for advertisement. There's a further difference between somebody paying for advertisement and something paying for advertisement.

I'll elaborate if you wish, but I'd assume this should be fairly clear to most people...