The left wing collectivists are incensed that there is an actual opposition to Obama. How dare they have 41 votes in the senate! How dare they have the power to even slow down the Obama socialist agenda! And the lefties are also so afraid of freedom of speech that they’ll try to stop it in spite of the First Amendment. In reaction to the NOI decision that government must get out of the way of blocking political speech, we get this from the NY Times:

Two leading Democrats, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said that they had been working for months to draft legislation in response to the anticipated decision.

One possibility would be to ban political advertising by corporations that hire lobbyists, receive government money, or collect most of their revenue abroad.

Another would be to tighten rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups so that, for example, they could not hire the same advertising firms or consultants.

A third would be to require shareholder approval of political expenditures, or even to force chief executives to appear as sponsors of commercials their companies pay for.

The political marketplace is expected to be chaotic; indeed, it was designed to be chaotic by allowing all  ideas to be spoken or printed. People like Andrew Sullivan, Keith Olbermann, the NY Times and the democratic party hacks in and out of congress are apoplectic over allowing real freedom of speech; i.e., the idea that anyone can speak, regardless of how rich they are.

The collectivists cannot stand the disorder of freedom. It’s one reason they favor a 2-party (well, really a 1-party) political system. Debate can be constrained and fresh ideas kept out of the political discourse. Their institutions are threatened by freedom. They are driven to tell you what to think and do and if you don’t think it or do it, they’ll force you into behavior acceptable only to them. "Ordnung muss sein", is the motto of statists everywhere.

Update, January 23, 10:24 AM: Predictably, Obama calls the court decision a strike at democracy itself. Democracy, according to Obama, means everyone is equal, not only before the law but in all other respects. So, if a group of people get together and spend their money to promote some political end, this is bad by definition because a group of people has more money than an individual and thus, the group can "drown out" the individual’s voice. Hmm. How did that work out with, say, Jesus Christ? Or, was it a strike against democracy when Adams, Jefferson Franklin, Madison, etc., got together their own money and printed up political pamphlets to start a revolution against Britain? The great constitutional lawyer who occupies the White House has no clue about what the constitution means.