A Victory for Free Speech
The case arose from the federal government banning the showing of a film about Hillary Clinton too close to Election Day. That power was granted by the infamous McCain-Feingold law that limits campaign donations and political speech. It is the same unconstitutional law that saw to it Michael Moore couldn't promote his anti-Bush diatribe "Fahernheit 9/11" months before Election Day 2004.
Either we all have free speech, even idiots like Moore, or none of us do.
Obama and the Democrats are trying to claim this is a victory for corporations that want to influence elections. Maybe it is. But is also a victory for Free Speech and the Constitution that demands "Congress shall make no law..." abridging the freedom of speech. This is a defeat for politicians and government censors who want to control what can be said about them when it matters most.
UPDATE: More from Jonathan Tobin here.
UPDATE II: Joe Sestak voicing his postition on government control and censorship of political speech. He's for it.
"I disagree with today's Supreme Court decision that gives the same status to corporations as to individual citizens in society by removing decades-old precedents that protected the electoral process from the influence of money. Corporations/unions are not equal members of society as an individual citizen. And I believe that any step that can be taken toward removing the influence of money, including through public financing of campaigns, would be significant for restoring public trust in our public institutions and their integrity. I would not have voted to place those Supreme Court Justices -- Thomas, Alito and Scalia -- on the Court as Senator Specter did. This demonstrates why it is important to have the right type of Democratic Senator who truly believes in the rights of individuals as opposed to what is best for corporations."Public financing of campaigns. That's the ticket. Force citizens to "involuntarily" contribute to political campaigns. There's a step in the right direction.