[jackbill]

Henderson was the dissenter. She would have struck down more of the act than the other two. (And her opinion may in the end win out at the SCOTUS level.)

Yes, I noticed that. I went to the "opinion" link and tried to read some of it but it's so damned complicated. Judge Henderson's memo just about said it all on the first page. She believes that the law is unconstitutional in virtually every aspect. (She probably would agree that the doubling of the hard money was OK)

She also seemed to be chiding the other judges for dragging their feet and making the case more complicated than it should have been.

The law was set up for this "fast track" three judge court and then the Supremes. With today's result, I wonder if any of the defendants will bother?

[Wphile]

I bet her opinion is that using one's own money is free speech and shouldn't be restricted in any way. Also the use of money contributed shouldn't be limited or restricted to only certain activities. That's my guess and I agree with her but I'll take this ruling anyway.