It seems the Supreme Court is going to revisit campaign finance reform. A group called Wisconsin Right to Life is arguing
Even the Los Angeles Times now can see where money might be speech. Its editorial, Liberate Free Speech, offers a bunch of caveats, indicating it still does not understand the underlying principle. No one expects the LAT to be able to understand the First Amendment. They are starting to detect a threat to newspapers.
That "bright line" seems a little blinding to the Times. The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is, of course, between free speech and restricted speech. It matters not whether I choose to finance the message of the NRA or of the ACLU while also articulating my own; or if they want to fund each other's. I don't care that George Soros does it personally and with impunity. The entirety of McCain-Feingold needs to be assigned to the ash heap of history, not just pieces the LA Times finds objectionable because it cuts too close to their own privilege.
The LA Times had a different take in 2003:
Quite simply, the [Washington] Post editorialist declared, the decision represented the laudable culmination of "years of Supreme Court precedent" and guarantees that "American democracy is not defenseless and that purchased access to the powerful is not protected by the right of free speech."