The reason this decision is getting a lot of bad press is because it seems to tilt the playing field in electoral politics to corporations, which have big money and the will to spend it to get what they want from favored politicians—and punish those who won't play ball with corporate power.
Writing in the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus has blasted the decision, taking apart its numerous errors. Here's the opening paragraph:
In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.A link to the entire column is on our Twitter feed on the right.