Winners, losers in Supreme Court ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) - Big business and free speech won. Campaign finance reform lost. Political parties and many candidates, too. And for voters, there's both an upside and a downside.

The Supreme Court's monumental decision upending decades of campaign finance law has a slew of winners and losers.

It frees corporations, and by extension unions, to spend as much as they want to call for the victory or defeat of federal political candidates — by name — in commercials and literature. As long as there's no coordination with the candidates or campaigns.

The ruling cuts both ways for voters. They will probably get more information about candidates. But they'll probably have to endure an even bigger crush of ads on their TVs and radios, as well as leaflets in their mailboxes.

Thursday's decision shook the political landscape, and it could have an enormous effect on this fall's midterm elections and beyond. Here's a look at who made out and who didn't.

WINNER:

• Voters. Not sure where a candidate stands on an issue? Not sure how to vote? Need more information to make a wise decision? Never fear. Corporations and unions are likely to tell you their version of things now that they're freed from restrictions. But buyer beware: It's still up to voters to separate fact from fiction.

LOSER:

• Voters. Had enough of campaign ads? Too bad. People probably will have to endure even more now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want from their general treasuries right up to the moment of an election. Voters will have to discern the motivations behind the ad campaigns as best they can. And more ads will only boost the potential for more salacious spots and negative campaigning.

WINNER:

• Corporations and unions. These high-dollar entities can now can spend freely to support or oppose named candidates for president and Congress. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling barring such ads.

LOSER:

• Political parties and many candidates. More voices in the mix means candidates and parties will have even less control of the message. And they won't be able to do anything to stop groups from running ads they don't like. Still, cash-strapped candidates could welcome such independent spending that attacks an opponent. Political parties now face more restrictions than outside groups on election-time communications.

WINNER:

• The First Amendment. The ruling was clearly a victory for this pillar of democracy. Critics of the stricter limits had argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. There certainly will be even more of a marketplace of ideas. Corporations and unions can now advertise what they please.

LOSER:

• Civility and truthfulness. Watch out candidates: You may not like what you hear. And there will be little you can do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats say ads are likely to get tougher now that outside groups can expressly advocate for or against candidates. And it will be up to voters to sort through the clutter.

WINNER:

• Media companies, TV and radio stations. They already see a financial windfall every two and four years during congressional and presidential campaigns. Paydays could be even bigger now. A flood of corporate and union money for ads in federal campaigns is expected as early as this fall's midterm campaigns.

LOSERS:

• Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They are the fathers of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that sought to restrain the influence of money on elections. The justices struck down the part of the law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.