This case should come up for a ruling next week, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission , and hopefully the Supremes will rule in favor of Citizen's United. Regardless of the fact that CU is primarily a Conservative group what they are working towards benefits both sides, who it doesn't benefit is incumbents (which is another great name for McCain Feingold - The Incumbents Protection Act) What this is all about is allowing anyone, corporation, union, PACs, or individuals, to run ads whenever they want to. Right now incumbents have demonstrated they are more than willing to use McCain Feingold to prevent any ad they legally can when the election nears. In other words, they can claim that ad "X" violates the rules because it is from "Y" who we legislated as not having a right to run such an ad. While many don't like the idea of a corporation contributing one way or another to a political race that is what happens with approved PACs and similar constructs. Why should it be any different for a corporation than an individual (like Soros) to back groups they like? So what the current laws have actually been used for is to block competitors to incumbents (I have not found a case where a challenger blocked an incumbent or their associates under the law) and those who support them from mounting the challenge.