It regards a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of blocking the film documentary, "Hillary" from being viewed, b/c of its political nature, and its corporate backers....or something like that.
They decided that it is obstructing free speech to block a film like that. That makes sense, but then, the above NY Times article speaks of how this decision allows for corporations, lobbyists, and unions to spend as much as they want to on a campaign. The fear being, of course, that the little guy's $10 donation gets severely dwarfed by the millions that a Corporation could contribute to a candidate. (or the unions' power to influence elections, who have less money than a corporation, would be dwarfed as well).
Regardless of how you come down on the court's decision, I'm not certain about how these two conclusions have to be related and congruent. Is this an incidence of unintended consequences, i.e., protecting free speech in the media, regardless of its backers, but at the same time unintentionally giving more power back to Wallstreet and Unions in influencing elections by contributing to campaigns?
I'm just confused on the implications of this decision.