If college kids are going to talk about one Supreme Court decision today, it will most likely be the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. But the justices issued another important decision on a case involving free speech, practically striking down an essential part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court loosened restrictions on corporations and unions from paying for political ads that mention a candidate near Election Day. The decision upheld an appellate ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads asking voters to urge their senators not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees.

I think the New York Times gives a pretty “fair and balanced” run-down of the story, which you can check out here.

But it’s worth checking out how other sources cover the story. The headlines pretty much tell where the objective and impartial journalists stand on the ruling. Compare the Baltimore Sun’s “Court rulings help White House initiative, corporate-funded ads” to ProLifeBlogs “U. S. Supreme Court Protects Grassroots Lobbying From McCain/Feingold Broadcast Blackout Periods.” Is this a case of free speech winning out over heavy-handed government regulation or of special interests prevailing over campaign-finance reform? Tough to give a straight answer. But that’s why we have a Supreme Court. Of course, SCOTUS doesn’t really give the impression that there’s a clear “right” answer with all these 5-4 rulings. Walter Dellinger writes on Slate:

Today's biggest story will no doubt be that the four big cases were all decided essentially by votes of 5-4, all with the same lineup, all with victories for the five more-conservative justices and defeats for the four more-liberal justices. The departure of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor looms hugely over this final week of the term—and not just in bottom-line outcomes. Without her, the court is more doctrinal (some O'Connor critics would say more "lawful"), and the doctrinal gap between The Five and The Four seems to be growing with each new decision. There seems to be no one on the court to offer some pragmatic resolution to difficult, contentious issues.

I like the way Dahlia Lithwick analyzes the day’s decisions. I don’t like the way Investor’s Business Daily does.