Nathan Wurtzel tweets: “Not at all sure GOPers who see SCOTUS decision as a political plus are seeing whole picture. It certainly is constitutionally correct.”"Political plus"-ness should not be a consideration. You either believe in and support the First Amendment guarantees of free speech or you don't. Supporting the Constitution only when it is personally beneficial is a piss poor way to honor one's citizenship.
A couple of points:
Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform.
As for viewing the decision through the “political plus” lens: I don’t. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don’t see it that way.
Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that if we allow the limitation of campaign speech that we could at some point find ourselves in a situation where limitations are placed on all speech?