I haven't read the opinions but perhaps she is just trying to say that the whole premise for the bill is wrong. That the purpose of political speech is to support a candidate and that denying the mention of a candidate's name in an RNC ad say is unconstitutional. So, for the pernicious part perhaps she was talking about the provision that only allows soft money for GOTV and party building but not political ads.
Okay, from what I've read about the court ruling, it actually makes CFR worse than it was. For example, although it allows issue ads, they are all forbidden from mentioning a candidates name ever. This applies throughout the entire year! What the f*ck is the point of an ad if you can't point out where the congressperson stands on the particular issued. This is a travesty. And not only that, there is a federal crime involved if you mistakenly aired the wrong ad. This gives complete control to the media - not to mention the lawyers as this is bound to spur lawsuit after lawsuit. Absolute pathetic.
I now side with those that place the blame on W for signing it. He gambled on the courts, and I thought for sure the courts would do the right thing (silly me!), but they failed. And it was the GW appointee who created the wreck. The Bush 41 appointee wanted to throw out the whole thing, the clinton appointee wanted to keep the whole thing, and the GW appointee decided to rewrite the law the way s/he saw fit.
Now we have to rely on the SCOTUS to fix this. I'm pissed as all get out.