I'm a firm believer in deference to the Congress (i.e., the people) on most all grounds. However, certain grounds are fair game, and I can think of no more appropriate area than free speech in connection with elections of members of that body.

I haven't read the decision yet and won't comment on the bulk of its "correctness" or lack thereof. However, I did note that the Court upheld the law forbidding advocacy groups from campaigning against politicians in the days before an election. Yes, that's what the law says: in the days before an election (i.e., when people are paying attention to the race) ads criticizing a candidate can be banned. Incredible.

As may be clear, I'm not one of those cheering for McCain-Feingold. I think the legislation was a mistake, especially increasing the hard money contribution limits to $2,000 for each cycle. Like everyone else, I'm sickened by the legalized bribery that passes for campaign financing today. But this legislation does not help matters.

John Q., you're wrong about what the law says. The "electioneering communications" provision the Court upheld does not ban "campaigning against politicians." It requires that if you run T.V. or radio ads mentioning a candidate for federal office in the 60 days before a general election, you must disclose who's paying for the ad. You can run as many ads as you like. The only thing that could be considered a ban on such ads is that they can't be paid for from the general treasury funds of a union or corporation (but they can be paid for by union or corporate PACs).

If you run the ad 61 days before the general election, you can use union or corporate money and you don't have to disclose who's paying.

JJ, I don't think that's quite right, although I may have overstated things a bit. Take a peek at the ACLU's fact sheet. This is the reason the AFL-CIO, Right to Life and the NRA have been so vociferously opposing the law.

The ACLU is wrong in some respects and overblown in most others.

BCRA doesn't apply if:

You don't include a picture of the candidate or mention a candidate's name in your ad; or

You run the ad more than 30 days before a primary or more than 60 days before a general election; or

You campaign via phone banks, newspaper ads, direct mail, door-to-door, Internet, etc.--anything but TV and radio.

The claim that there's a "vague" rule that the FEC would have to enforce is false. The arguably vague standard was a statutory "backup" that would apply only if the Supreme Court had struck down the mechanical, bright-line 30/60-day rule.

Within the 30 or 60 days, you can say anything you want about the issues, about tax policy, about the war, and so on, and you can use union or corporate money and not tell anyone who you are.

If you put President Bush on the screen on Nov. 1 and have an ominous voice saying how many people have died in Iraq, then you have to disclose who paid for the ad and, if you're a union or corporation, you have to set up a separate PAC to pay for it. And if you believe that it's OK to require disclosure of who has given money to Bush and to his opponent (which I know some people oppose), then it's hard to see what's wrong with disclosing who's paying to support or attack them on TV.

Rick Hasen, who runs a blog addressing election law, has this post (one of many) regarding the decision. While Hasen supported McCain Feingold, he was shocked at how cavalierly the Court dismissed the first amendment concerns, and surprised at the deference the Court gave to Congress on a matter in which they are so interested (ie, their own political survivial).