Should the Supreme Court have term limits?

First, thank you for the thoughtful response and discussion. I am enjoying it.
But, again, I am going to disagree....
Press can be blogs, Youtube videos, a man with a bullhorn downtown, students placing fliers under windshield wipers, and many other things that cost little or nothing. If someone else's press picks up those activities and markets them in a larger venue, that's their choice. The fact is there are numerous way in which to express views and share them without the use of money. I agree that money can buy you more coverage, or a larger audience, but that is a matter of degree....not an on/off switch. Press, large or small, is not delineated by the language of the First Amendment.

Another problem with equating money with speech or press, is that money has a far more open-ended and limitless capacity than either speech or press. Money can be used for anything....press can only be used to disseminate information. When a silent, corporate campaign donor gives money to a candidate, there is no guarantee that the money will be used for press. It may be used for lunches, gas, airfare, bribes, hookers, drugs, alcohol, gambling or anything else. Money is a force, a power that can be utilized for any number of activities, only some of which have anything to do with speech or press.
There is a composition fallacy in your argument: When you take something limited in capacity by definition, and equate it with something limitless you endow the former with attributes that it doesn't actually have.

This is problem that former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens points out:
"While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself," Stevens said. "After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment."huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/john-paul-stevens-campai...e_n_5240779.html

You write:
"However, it's important to also note that the primary purpose of the 1st amendment protections of speech, press, assembly, and redress of grievances is to protect political activities, so if anything, legal restrictions on these activities will be far more likely to be blocked by the 1st."

Yes, political activities are the most important things to protect in my opinion, and so doesn't the FEC V. McCucheon decision seem disingenuous considering the recent scotus decisions killing the voting rights act of 1965? The quick and easy passage of H.R. 437? Or, when the Rhenquist court found that press in the form of distributing leaflets in was not protected?

"But in subsequent cases, the conservative justices who had emphatically embraced the money-is-speech principle didn't apply it to money solicited by speakers of ordinary means. For example, the court International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). of Hare Krishna leafleters soliciting donations in airports to support their own leafleting. The leafleting drew no money-is-speech analysis. To the contrary, the conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that by asking for money for leafleting—their form of speech—the Hare Krishnas were being "disruptive" and posing an "inconvenience" to others. In other words, in the court's view, some people's money is speech; others' money is annoying. And the conservative justices have raised no objection to other limits on the quantity of speech, such as limits on the number of picketers." (Karys, David. Slate 2010) (International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992).(91-155), 505 U.S. 672 (1992). Concurrence [ Kennedy ] Syllabus Opinion [ Rehnquist ]

It seems highly suspect to me that this money=speech argument is used selectively to favor the wealthy, while similar robust protections are denied to whistle-blowers, and ordinary citizens, protesting, assembling, or otherwise exercising their rights to free speech.

No, I cannot find any good justification for the Citizens United, and FEC v. McCucheon decisions, and they reveal a corruption of principle at the highest level of our nations courts.

Relating to your definition of freedom and different capabilities, yes, we all have different capabilities, but the scotus clearly demonstrates favoritism regarding whose rights are protected, and whose are not.

Regardless of capabilities, the use of speech to undermine basic democratic functions of state has never been upheld until now. This court is dismantling old and long held ideals about what representative government means, and that ultimately, is what alarms me the most.