OK, I warn you, this one is kind of dry.  It's about nothing very important - just your right to free speech.  Feel free to turn back to the vital news of Paris Hilton anytime this gets too boring.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court handed down another decision in the ongoing struggle over the Bipartisan Criticism Prevention Act...  umm...  I mean the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld a lower court that said the government couldn't silence an "issue ad" under the terms of BCRA.

Hooray for Free Speech!

Right on!!!

Right...?

Well, maybe.  It's not all sweetness and light, even though it IS a step in the right direction.  Chief Justice John Roberts, along with fellow Dubya-appointee Samuel Alito, declined to go further.  In writing the majority opinion, they refused to overturn the whole mess. 

But wait!  There's MORE!!!  (unfortunately)

Justice Souter along with Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens, had this rather incredible observation...

"Voters know this [refers to the importance of money in campaigns-gmh]. Hence, the second important consequence of the demand for big money to finance publicity: pervasive public cynicism. A 2002 poll found that 71 percent of Americans think Members of Congress cast votes based on the views of their big contributors, even when those views differ from the Member’s own beliefs about what is best for the country. Mellman & Wirthlin 267; see also id., at 266 (“In public opinion research it is uncommon to have 70 percent or more of the public see an issue the same way. When they do, it indicates an unusually strong agreement on that issue”). The same percentage believes that the will of contributors tempts Members to vote against the majority view of their constituents. Id., at 267. Almost half of Americans believe that Members often decide how to vote based on what big contributors to their party want, while only a quarter think Members often base their votes on perceptions of what is best for the country or their constituents. Ibid.

There you have it gentle reader.  Decide a Constitutional issue by polling!  That's how they would rule.  BY POLLS!!

Still, there's hope...

Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas agreed with the court's result, but had this VERY encouraging commentary about the whole BCRA ban on speech:

"There is wondrous irony to be found in both the genesis and the consequences of BCRA. In the fact that the institutions it was designed to muzzle—unions and nearly all manner of corporations—for all the “corrosive and distorting effects” of their “immense aggregations of wealth,” were utterly impotent to prevent the passage of this legislation that forbids them to criticize candidates (including incumbents). In the fact that the effect of BCRA has been to concentrate more political power in the hands of the country’s wealthiest individuals and their so-called 527 organizations, unregulated by §203. (In the 2004 election cycle, a mere 24 individuals contributed an astounding total of $142 million to 527s. S. Weissman & R. Hassan, BCRA and the 527 Groups, in The Election After Reform 79, 92—96 (M. Malbin ed. 2006).) And in the fact that while these wealthy individuals dominate political discourse, it is this small, grass-roots organization of Wisconsin Right to Life that is muzzled.

I would overrule that part of the Court’s decision in McConnell upholding §203(a) of BCRA. Accordingly, I join Parts I and II of today’s principal opinion and otherwise concur only in the judgment."