Not all liberals have aligned on the same side of the issue. Lawyers for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are siding with Citizen's United in the case out of First Amendment concerns.
The group feared that the government might interpret the law to prohibit a book endorsing a candidate from being published by a corporation prior to an election. In briefs, attorney Lucy Daglish argued, "This court has never tolerated such an infringement on freedom of the press."
In a nod to the blogosphere and growing popularity of social networking sites online, the court claimed today that its decision is on the side of tomorrow while the laws are stuck in the political marketplace of yesterday.
"Rapid changes in technology -- and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression -- counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in a certain media or by certain speakers," Kennedy wrote. "[McCain-Feingold] would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog post were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions."