It's no secret I am no fan of this Supreme Court. Some members are fairly sound. Justices Scalia and Thomas are committed to reading the actual words of the Constitution, a task most of the other members have discarded in favor of reading the NY Times editorial page. Whatever. The Court's recent decisions have evidenced no sound doctrinal foundation. Basically they are all over the place. They ruled the University of Michigan could discriminate on the basis of race, provided they were somewhat circumspect about it. Oh, and Justice O'Connor added they should stopin about 25 years. That is constitutional law? They ruled that a state could not prohibit homosexual sex, after ruling exactly the opposite a few years earlier. The one guiding principle of the Court has been that there is no guiding principle, just whatever 5 members seem to think sounds like a good idea. The past giants of the Court, like both Justice Harlans, Justice Frankfurter, even the wily Justice Brandeis, must be hanging their heads in embarrassment for what has happened to their beloved institution. Now the Court has truly made a name for itself. It has rendered a decision that makes the Massachustetts Supreme Court's gay marriage decision look like a model of judicial reasoning. If possible, it has surpassed even the storied clunkers from the Court's long history, abominations like Dredd Scott and Roe v. Wade. The Court has apparently ruled that the campaign finance law is largely constitutional. The law covers many aspects of campaign finance, but one provision had been almost universely assumed to be clearly unconstitutional. That was the provision that barred ads in the 30 day period leading up to an election from outside groups, unless such ads were paid for with so-called hard money contributions. It is no secret that many congressmen voted for the bill with the understanding that this provision was sure to be thrown out by the courts. It is odious because it restricts the free speech rights of ordinary citizens, while doing nothing to impede the ability of the media to influence campaigns, with editorials or slanted coverage. In effect it makes anyone who doesn't own a media outlet a second class citizen in terms of free speech. A giant corporation like Disney, which owns huge businesses in various sectors of the economy, has unlimited free speech rights because it owns a media outlet, but issue groups like the NRA, environmental groups, retired people, both sides of the abortion issue, etc are muzzled. This is not really a liberal/conservative dispute. Liberals generally are in favor of free speech, at least as long as they agree with it, and conservatives are skeptical of government restrictions on campaign finance. So who favors this draconian limitation on citizens' ability to criticize government? Mainly incumbents. They enjoy name recognition and don't like having their advantages infringed by pesky interest groups. So chalk up another win for the big government crowd, courtesy of an increasingly out to lunch Supreme Court.