The LA Times offers this editorial about the argument in the WRTL case from earlier this week. (My substantive posts on the argument are here and here). A snippet from the editorial: “It seems likely that Roberts will join the majority in ruling that McCain-Feingold’s ban on ‘phony issue ads’ was used improperly against the Wisconsin ad. Such a salutary outcome would clear the way for a Federal Election Commission ruling making it clear that similar ads are allowed, even if they mention a candidate and attempt to influence an election.” This is certainly a defensible position to take, but we should be clear about what this means: it means essentially an end to limits on corporate electioneering paid for by corporate treasury funds. McCain Feingold would be mostly a limit on party contributions.
For a different viewpoint from the Times, see this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial. Meanwhile, the Capital Times offers Campaign Finance Case Hinges on Alito’s Vote.