' Ultimately, while this makes a compelling argument, it seems almost aggressively to skirt the issue of campaign finance reform as a basic inspiration for the restrictions struck down here within. This is a resolution that should be seen as somewhat troubling apart from questions of free speech, at least from the perspective that there is some genuine value to limiting the impact which corporations can have on an election. Such is to say that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court avoids an opportunity to judge the case of Citizens United v. FEC on the narrow argument presented by the plaintiff. Instead, the Supreme Court appears to have taken the liberty through its broad and far-reaching decision to attempt to discredit and undermine the McCain-Feingold Bill on the whole. The turn of its attention to issues of free speech and the entitlements in this regard for corporations suggests that the Supreme Court possessed the will to take a firm stance against legislation...

The United States Supreme Court has taken a clear position against the constitutionality of the legislation in general. Victories such as this one for Citizens United represent a positive precedent from the perspective of the politically motivated corporation. Indeed, the argument produced here against §441b may be adapted to disrupt any number of other elements of the BCRA intended to reduce corporate influence over electoral outcomes. The question left unanswered by the decisions concerns how best to constitutionally limit the impact of corporations on voter trends.
Works Cited:

Maisel, L.S. & Brewer, M. (2007). Parties and Elections in America. Rowman & Littlefield.

United States Supreme Court. (2009). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission No. 08-205. United State Supreme Court.