Writing for the majority in the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that Congress cannot choose an "unconstitutional remedy" to curtail "improper influences from independent expenditures."<\/font><\/p>\n "It is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule," he wrote. "An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical pre-election period is not a permissible remedy."<\/font><\/p>\n Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent for the minority.<\/font><\/p>\n "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation<\/strong>," he wrote.<\/font><\/p>\n The court’s ruling on Citizens United v. FEC has been highly anticipated by political operatives, unions, corporations and advocates on both sides of the debate over campaign finance reform.<\/font><\/p>\n Supporters of campaign finance limits criticized the ruling, predicting that the decision would diminish the average citizen’s influence in elections<\/strong>.<\/font><\/p>\n "This is the Supreme Court run amok<\/strong>," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, who vowed to begin working with colleagues to pass legislation restoring restraints on "corporate control of our elections."<\/font><\/p>\n But Feingold noted that the decision does not affect his measure’s soft money ban, which prevents companies from making political donations to political parties.<\/font><\/p>\n Critics of stricter limits welcomed the decision, arguing that limits amounted to unconstitutional restraints on free speech. The ruling boosted the idea that the government can’t regulate speech based on who is making the statements, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Federal Elections Commission member.<\/font><\/p>\n "I think this is a terrific decision because it restores parts of the First Amendment that were stolen by a very bad law that set up the FEC as a censor," he said.<\/font><\/p>\n Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and former FEC chairman, said the decision would lead to more ads.<\/font><\/p>\n "Speech is important and this will be good in allowing union and corporations to speak," he said.<\/font><\/p>\n Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy in the majority opinion<\/font><\/strong>. Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s newest member, joined Stevens as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the dissent<\/font><\/strong>\u2026 [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/font><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Inserted from <JSOnline<\/a>><\/p>\n Needless to say, Republicans goose-stepped for glee:<\/p>\n![\"aetna-lieberman-palin\"](\"http:\/\/s217.photobucket.com\/albums\/cc83\/TomCat1948or2\/Blog%202010\/J-M\/100SenatorsNamedLIEberman_3C4C\/aetnaliebermanpalin.jpg\" "\\"aetna-lieberman-palin\\"")
<\/a> The Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back campaign finance restrictions that were meant to limit corporate and union influence on elections. The decision potentially unleashes a flood of corporate cash during elections<\/strong>, threatens state limits in Wisconsin and elsewhere and strikes down part of the McCain-Feingold law that bans certain issue ads in the days before an election.<\/font><\/p>\n<\/a> "Corporations and unions now will be able to buy up all the television time and block average citizens and potentially even candidates to get the message out," he said. "It could have a very, very negative impact on the system<\/strong>."<\/font><\/p>\n\n