I found the decision to be encouraging in that it goes back to the Constitution as written rather than as arbitrarily adapted as a ‘living’ document. There is a way to ‘adapt’ the Constitution to changing times and that is amending it.

The words of the First Amendment seem clear to me. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” …no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…’ seems to fit within Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion that, “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

Justice Stephen’s opinion in the minority, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” appears to extend the idea that amending the Constitution is something that should be continuously done through a paternalistic court.