other than the fact that folks don’t like the outcome. but from a legal perspective this was the case as I understand it
there was a law that prevented corporations from funding ”electioneering communications” within 30 days of an election (in this case it was a primary election)
defendant politcal non profit made a documentary about Hillary Clinton within that timeframe which triggered a lawsuit.
SCOTUS overturned the law citing free speech of both individuals and organizations,
dark money exploded in politics
perhaps I am wrong on the facts so please correct me if I’m wrong here. Now I’m not going to say the outcome is good, but looking at the law I can’t see any alternative other than overturning it. like what even is electioneering communication? if I write a book about global warming in those 30 days and one candidate goes around citing my book, did I electioneer? did the publisher? Practically *any* speech at any time can be construed to be political in nature, and uses some form of organization to amplify it (social media as an example). so is there actually a good reason to uphold that law that I’m missing? Perhaps the opinion was too expansive, but the law seems stupidly problematic