[Starwind]

The big difference here being the fact that the current SCOTUS has already identified political donations as speech, and protected under the First.

SCOTUS however found:
"In today's [6/25/01] ruling, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, said unlimited party spending would undermine the purpose of campaign finance rules. "We hold that a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits," Souter wrote."

So, clearly, a liberal majority is quite willing under what they consider to be reasonable circumstances, to restrict a freedom to spend money on political campaigns.

I don't see the ad ban in McCain Feingold to be that far a leap for them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So, clearly, a liberal majority is quite willing under what they consider to be reasonable circumstances, to restrict a freedom to spend money on political campaigns."

"We hold that a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits,"

SCOTUS is talking about "Party" spending, not individual spending, nor are they talking about PAC's or citizen's groups.

Tne Party has no rights, only individuals have rights.