[elizabetty]

From the Chief in the decision yesterday.

"In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it. We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech. We further conclude that the interests held to justify restricting corporate campaign speech or its functional equivalent do not justify restricting issue advocacy, and accordingly we hold that BCRA §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases. "

[Huck]

We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech.

In other words, the law was misapplied. It's fine to restrict campaign speech, he is saying. But issue ads that don't call on ppl to vote for someone aren't campaign speech. Were it the functional equivelant, the other side would have won.