South Dakota "first amendment case"

In this case I been reading that touches on what we've been learning and discussing in class, Americans have the right to support or oppose state ballot measures, even if they are not residents of the state. This is the issue according to the heart of South Dakota Newspaper Association. This case had begun when South Dakota passed Initiated Measure 24 in 2018. That measure, as codified by the South Dakota Legislature, would ban "any contribution to a statewide ballot question committee by a person who is not a resident of the state at the time of the contribution, a political committee that is organized outside South Dakota, or an entity that is not filed as an entity with the secretary of state for the four years preceding such contribution." Such a ban like this on out-of-state contributions would be detrimental to the First Amendment, since this is the case, they receive significant First Amendment protection, seeing as this case is truly unfair. I honestly feel as though that it would be the right thing to do to be granted the right to be protected by the First Amendment considering this situation. No one should be forced to support the state ballot measures if they feel that it is not needed, or even goes against their values. To try and force citizens to support the state ballot procedures would be undemocratic, this will be defeating the purpose of the term “free democracy” and would seem to be more of a dictatorship.  

  https://www.ifs.org/cases/south-dakota-newspaper-association-et-al-v-barnett-et-al/