The wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Liberal Censors aside, the latest Supreme Court ruling is a great step in returning to the People the ability to say, and more importantly, hear, whatever they choose when it comes to the election of public officials.

To summarize the Court's majority opinion, the Supreme Court simply ruled that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. Essentially, they overturned McCain-Feingold. The vote was, once again, 5-4. Just why the more liberal members of the Court (who supposedly stand for "free speech") so often seem unable to read the Constitution is something I still find disturbing.

Note that since the ruling made no distinction between corporations and other groups, the protection of the right to express political views extends not only to labor unions, but to groups as disparate as Planned Parenthood and the NRA. Thus the opinion is clearly a victory for free speech, regardless of your own political position.

Now, you are probably not shocked that the news coverage focuses almost exclusively on the affect that the ruling has on "corporations" (whom the media, like most liberals, hate). A sampling:

The New York Times - "Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections." (Also note the "bitterly divided" editorializing by the Times writer).

NPR - National Public Radio - The headline says "Supreme Court Ruling: No More Ban on Corporate Campaign Money" then the article ominously warns "The ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, takes effect immediately, and could play a huge role in the 2010 midterm elections."

FOX News, not surprisingly, was the only major media outlet that gave a neutral, and accurate synopsis - "Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns" and further clarified the ruling by stating "the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns."

Naturally, liberal Senator Chuck Schumer, who would like nothing better than to control the political speech of his opponents, completely ignored the union element of the decision, and predicted only that "corporations" would benefit, adding that "the Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners in next November's election." Odd that Mr. Schumer is so frightened by the prospect of a freely informed and politically active electorate.

But the fact is, the ruling finally reverses the impact of the egregiously anti-free speech McCain-Feingold Act. The decision will actually protect rights of all people, whether they be employees of a corporation, members of a union, or simply individuals who join some other entity like the NRA or NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) to pool their money in order to get their message out.

Contrary to the claims made by opponents of free speech, "getting the money out of politics" is not only impossible, it is not even desirable. It takes money to produce ads, buy airtime, print fliers, rent billboards, whatever. In a sense, the court has rightly concluded that, in essence, money IS free speech - and any restriction on the amount of money you can spend is in fact a restriction on your political speech.

And even if you don't like them, corporations pay a huge percentage of the nation's taxes, so it would be hard to argue that they don't have the same right to participate in electing the people who are going to tax them as anyone else. So it is a bit disingenuous when politicians, especially Democrats, simultaneously demonize corporate America...while taxing the hell out of them. U.S. corporations pay the second highest tax rate in the world - only Japan's is higher (a fact that led to a 10 year recession that only now is abating).

In reality, McCain-Feingold did nothing to restrict the ability of corporations or unions to get their message out - the "big guys" just created the now infamous "527" groups to accomplish the same goal that direct campaign contributions previously did. The only thing McCain-Feingold actually accomplished was to make it harder for the "little guy" (you and me) to make our voices heard. Gun owners are acutely aware that unless the $50 they send to the NRA can be used to campaign for specific candidates, right up to election day, the ability to protect their rights is severely limited.

But, let's say, by the wave of some magic wand, it actually was possible to "take all the money out of politics" - just like the "fairness" brigade would like to so. No more 527 groups, no campaign donations at all, nothing. Zero, zip, nada. Great, right? Not really, because most of us "regular folks" would no longer have any way to influence elected representatives, let alone the President of the United States.

Don't believe me? Imagine that, shortly after eliminating all money from the political sphere, you call the White House. What do you think the chances are that your call will be put through to the President? Yeah, right.

Now imagine that 5 minutes after your call, the White House phone rings again, only this time the President's assistant comes in to the Oval Office and says "Mr. President, you have a phone call - it's the CEO of Exxon-Mobil (or SEIU, the Service Employees International Union), shall I put them through?"

What do you think ANY President's answer will be?