The Supreme Court is getting a lot of attention for its Citizens United decision.  The decision allows groups such as unions and corporations to spend freely on campaign ads and other independent but blatantly political acts. Here is a sensible defense of it. As is this. The New York Times believes it is an attack on democracy. And an LA Times columnist calls it conservative judicial activism, a claim that shows less whether the decision is good and more that he doesn’t understand the judicial philosophy he attacks. The decision itself is very long, so I haven’t tackled it yet, though you can find it here. It is a potential game changer, especially in the on-going debate about the nature of protected speech in the 1st Amendment, such as who is protected to speak and what kind of speech is intended to be protected.