Is this the death of Mccain-Feingold?  We believe that Mccain-Feingold, at leas the teeth of it, is dead, that the floodgates will now open up on the side that was hurt the most from this unconstitutional law, the conservatives, specifically the artificial limitations placed on non-profits to donate directly to candidates and parties of their choosing.  The ruling itself went beyond the issue of non-profits.  It encompassed even the corporate limitations that had been heretofore placed on their power to contribute directly to candidates and parties.

This ruling is both good and bad, good in the sense that the playing field will now be leveled.  Conservatives will now be able to compete with the billionaire progressives who pump untold millions into multiple hatchet organizations like moveon.org, the unions, and acorn.  Short term, this is good, as the left will now be brought out to light by the loyal opposition.  Long term, this raises the level of money that will go into campaigns, and risks making candidates beholden to…corporate campaign dollars.

All that’s left of Mccain Feingold is the provisions that require full disclosure.  What’s more, Mccain Feingold was going to be one of bedrocks the leftists were going to use to justify regulating bloggers online.  Now, that ship done sailed…

Here are a few excerpts from the blogosphere:

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”

“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

“The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today’s ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others.

“In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added.
From:
[1] http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-decimates-mccain-feingold-campaign-finance-law/

John Mccain’s reaction reveals his true progressive nature:
McCain, whose party leaders praised the court decision, wasn’t as tough as Feingold. “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions,” he said.

Read more: [2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31810.html#ixzz0dLrUWd51

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the other 4 more conservative judges on the Court. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a 90-page dissent joined by the Court’s other 3 liberal justices.

The Court cited the First Amendment and an overbearing FEC as primary reasons for overturning the McCain-Feingold legislation.

The FEC’s “regulatory scheme may not be a prior restrain on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place,” Kennedy wrote. “As a practical matter, however, given the complex-ity of the regulations and the deference courts show toadministrative determinations, a speaker who wants toavoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a govern-mental agency for prior permission to speak.”

“The FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, theymust either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question,” Kennedy continued. “Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprece-dented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.”

From:[3] http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/scotus_wipes_ou.php

Don’t take our word for it.  Read the entire ruling here:
[4] http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf