The Supreme Court has ruled that candidates campaigning for judgeships can describe themselves and their opponents.

Cheerfully, this bodes ill for McCain-Feingold.

I heard this leap posited by our local conservative talk radio host last evening as well. He thought that this decision might offer hope that CFR would be struck down when it reaches the Supreme Court, provided of course that the court had the same members or similar makeup. An explanation of why this bodes ill for CFR is eagerly anticipated.

Because CFR is in blatant violation of free speech, and this court seems to be taking a more liberal (that is broad) interpretation of freedom of speech than past courts.

I don't have the link right at hand, but Eugene Volokh did an excellent piece some time back on the "money is speech" argument. Boiled down, he said the "money is speech" phrase is a bumper sticker, not an argument. But limiting campaign spending is rather like guaranteeing all defendents the right to have a lawyer but making it illegal to pay for one.

Sorry, that is too short to do it justice. It's worth searching and reading the whole thing.