This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Wednesday, June 27, 2012. I'm Caleb Brown.

When the Supreme Court rejected a Montana claim that Citizens United, the free speech ruling,

didn't apply to a ban on some political speech, the court did so along the lines you might expect.

And that sends a signal that Citizens United may not be as settled a case as fans of free speech might hope.

John Samples, director of the Cato Institute Center

for Representative Government, comments.

The Supreme Court did not hear this case.

They essentially issued a summary opinion saying your 1912 law prohibiting corporate

expenditures to talk about politics in your races is overturns based on the clear language of citizens united.

Does this have any real meaning?

Does this really change anything about the calculus of campaign

finance reformers?

Well, this decision was expected.

It's not news and it was expected for the reason the majority said in their opinion here,

which is that the First Amendment has applied to the states for a long time, right?

And so Citizens United interpreted the First Amendment of the National Constitution.

There's a supremacy clause in the Constitution that says state laws don't

trump national laws, right?

So there was nothing surprising in that sense.

The First Amendment applies everywhere and Citizens United applies.

So the majority opinion I think was very much informed and very appreciative of precedent.

I think the important thing, the implication those in the dissent, and there was

...