>>I really do like that this is going to repeal a number of "incumbant-friendly" so-called reforms and let the fur fly in advertising. If political ads are protected speech then it always seemed obvious to me that the money required to place those ads is protected as well. They left in tact the law requiring ads to reveal the source of funding.
>>
>>As one who owns 2 DVRs and hasn't seen a non-Super Bowl commercial in 3 years. Bring it on! ;)
>>
>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hSmxN2CYmjldxB-THM3r60co22gg
>
>A truly revolting development. This is what we get for having a Republican Supreme Court.
>
>My hat is off to Mitch McConnell (and others) for framing this as a free speech issue, and saying it with a straight face. How exactly do corporations "speak"?

No framing required. The case in question had to do with a movie called "Hillary". It was declared to be a long-form political ad and as such was restricted under campaign finance laws instead of being treated as any other movie. The issue was clear. Political speech was restricted.

As for corporations speaking...Why not? Establishing a legal framework for a business should hardly cost one their 1st amendment rights. Remember, the VAST majority of corporations in this country are small businesses. As to the issue of size, now we're talking matters of scale and where/how do you draw the line? # of employees? Profits? Value? Public/private?

Besides, these laws made little difference to the corporations/unions anyway. They simply found ways around them through PACs and 527s and the like. The practical effect these laws had was to insulate incumbents from targeted ads as election day looms.

For those inclined to read the full decision :
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf