Much has been made in the press over the past few weeks about the landmark Supreme Court case that will allow unions and corporations to spend money in federal election campaigns. As is often the case, journalists are ill-equipped to explain the ramifications and legal reasoning behind such cases and this time is no exception. The Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is a 183 page decision that encompasses 40 years of legal precedents, an incredibly complex and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law, and ideologically polarized views of free speech. Most reporters, the President, and many high profile members of Congress have editorialized against the law suggesting that corporations will now be able to simply buy elections. That is not really true.

Here is the two-part bottom line. The Supreme Court ruled that the government may not decide who is allowed and who is not allowed to speak. Second, the Court ruled that although Congress is allowed to regulate speech, they cannot outright ban speech. Frankly, I can’t see why such a decision is controversial at all. If anything, civil libertarians should be applauding it.

The first part of their decision upholds a long-held tradition in this country. The Court has laid down many restrictions on the content of speech, but they have never allowed legislative bodies to determine who is allowed to speak. The Court has developed a body of law that says the time, the place, and the manner in which you speak may be regulated for the purpose of public safety. You can’t use a bullhorn at 2 am, nor may you hold a protest in the maximum security ward of a local prison, nor may you speak by blocking off an abortion clinic. But the Supreme Court has always held that these regulations apply to everyone equally—individual, association, union, political party, or even corporation. What Congress tried to do was say that some people are not allowed to speak at all and the Court said that went too far. Good for the Court.

Second, the Supreme Court has been very protective of our most fundamental rights. Whenever a legislative body restricts those fundamental rights, the courts demand that legislatures meet three criteria. First, they must show that there is a “compelling state interest” so important that it justifies restricting a Constitutional right. Second, the state must show that the law is “narrowly tailored” to meet that objective and third the law must be the “least restrictive means” of doing so. The McCain-Feingold law met the first criteria but failed miserably on the second two.

The Court accepts that Congress has the right to regulate corporate and union speech in order to preserve some fairness of access to our democratic process. But the McCain-Feingold law was overly broad. It treated non-profits the same way it treated Exxon-Mobile. Even worse, the law was not the least restrictive means of accomplishing the stated goal. Completely banning all speech by some entities is draconian in nature. The Court requires that in the realm of free speech, Congress must act with a scalpel not a chain saw.

Consider the facts of this case. An entity of the US government was threatening a non-profit with fines and possible jail time for the act of disseminating a political documentary. The FEC argued that they had the right to regulate the production because it was within 30 days of an election and it was about a candidate running for office. Can you imagine if it were a book? In fact, during oral arguments, attorneys for the FEC argued that they should be empowered to ban books of a similar nature. Such an argument is abhorrent to everything this nation stands for. In fact, our framers crafted the First Amendment to ensure that governments would never be allowed to restrict political speech for any reason at any time. If we are willing to abandon our most fundamental rights in exchange for some campaign finance “reform” we open the door to abandon other rights for similarly crafted political argument. The Court’s decision may not be a popular decision, but it was the correct decision.