Bucco, thanks for an informative link. Bradley A. Smith, in the link you provided, said:

What does this case mean? Well, the government argued that it had the authority under the Constitution to prohibit Amazon from distributing books on Kindle; to prohibit Barnes and Noble from selling, or Simon and Schuster from publishing, a 500 page book with even one line of candidate political advocacy; to prohibit a union from hiring an author to write a book (say, "Why Working Americans Should Support the Obama Agenda"); and to ban a political movie from being distributed by video on demand.

So this decision means no, the government does not have that power under our Constitution. I'm literally shocked that anyone would think the government should have won.

.....and I am shocked that proclaimed freedom of speech advocates would be critical of the decision. It is amazing that the liberal component of the court provided the dissenting opinions 5-4. This should be a wake up call to freedom loving Patriots on just how important Supreme Court appointments are. It the court had one more Obama liberal.....imagine what are country would have lost.

Reverting back to my original post, I guess some place more emphasis on political advantage, power and whose ox gets gored than preserving our basic rights. I remember a time when the old Democratic Party my mother worked for (JFK's campaign), would be doing high fives and celebrating a victory for freedom of speech. Instead, sprinkled with Chuck Schumeresque whining, crying and complaining that the court is wrong and he intends to craft legislation to overturn the decision, we have those bemoaning the perceived loss of campaign funding advantage. So much for "freedom of speech" from the left. Good luck Chuckie.