The best I could figure out is that the Corporations, without going through their political action committees, can run attack ads financed by corporate funds during the periods that were previously prohibited in the McCain-Feingold bill, which was 30 days before a Primary Election, and 60 days before a General Election.  Now this is very serious.  Because if you are going to run attack ads that is when you would do it.  Running attack ads earlier than 60 days before a general election is a total waste of money, and no corporation would waste their money on doing something like that.  The ruling does not change the prohibition on corporations directly funding candidates.  They still have to do that through their Political Action Committees.  But the effect of being able to run attack ads at election time is as bad as being able to fund candidates directly, and does increase the ability of multinational corporations to intervene into any election.  Such an intervention would most likely be against any candidate that the corporations, or a specific corporation, did not deem would be willing to act in the corporation(s) interest.  This intervention would also be of a negative attack type nature, not a positive intervention.  In effect, candidates running for office would have to fear such interventions, and would be further fearful than they already are of representing the interest of the voters in their districts.  Candidates can always get funds from the political action committees of the corporations for favors to the corporations, but those who eschew the corporations would now also have to contend with the corporations intervening against them with attack ads, to help their opponents win.  Media time is very expensive and depends on the market share that a network, or media entity has for its advertising.  To be able to do something like this with millions of dollars at a shot is very onerous, and not a first amendment issue.  The other issue raised in the decision is that the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations should have the freedom of speech that citizens have.  In other words a rich individual could run attack ads as an individual.  A rich person would probably not do that since it is a huge waste of money for such an individual, and the individual would be identified with the issue directly and would lose anonymity.  The affected candidate could retaliate publicly against that individual, who would be exposed personally to counterattacks for attack for running attack ads. It would be one individual attacking another individual.  A corporation is more anonymous and can hide behind some front group or committee in doing the attack.  In other words the Supreme Court has not conferred the same rights to freedom of speech that an individual has to a corporation, rather it has conferred MORE RIGHTS THAN WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS.  It is of no suprise that the five Supreme Court Justices who did this are fascists members of the Federalist Society, and subscribe the unconstitutional view of the Bush doctrine of the "unitary executive" which is fascist.  This is the same doctrine Obama is going with now.   

-Paul Glumaz