I take it this was inspired by the supreme court overturning campaign spending rules. When taken into consideration state run media, which absolutely exists and is extremely liberal, unions, ACORN (a federally funded organization who's job is to influence elections and is also a liberal institution), I personally see this as a evening of the playing field at least as far as the financial aspect of the ruling goes of course, and probably more importantly, this ruling protects citizens rights to consume whatever they choose.
President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible.
"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.
Point blank those arguing for President Obama are saying, we can ban books we don't like.
This of course all came about because a non-profit organization filmed a negative movie about Hilary Clinton when she was running to garner the votes needed to gain the Democratic nomination for President. Because of the law, which was just struck down, they were not allowed to advertise the movie because it was 'too political'. While those with a media exemption, such as Michael Moore, can do or say whatever they want, a "corporation" can't, or could not until now.
This was about freedom. Freedom to receive any information you want without interference from the government. Anyone should have the right to publish whatever they wish, supporting whoever they wish without government interference. At least that is my opinion.
America isn't perfect, but it does get tiring that we have to hear those on the left constantly slamming it, and us.