Really? Well, obviously this decision allows corporations with mammoth funds to, without limit, promote candidates who favor their business interests and promote defeat of those who do not. Those candidates who typically favor the interests of big corporations, such as oil, banks, and health insurance are . . . Reeeepublicans. So, Republicans would benefit directly from this ruling. This would apply not only to the largest and wealthiest corporations, but also to those with more localized, modest interests. That is the simple answer to your question. But, that is not necessarily why I characterize this as a political decision. For me, the decision is politically driven more as a result of the process by which it was made than the impact it will ultimately render. This decision was issued by a majority that has, despite proclamations of judicial restraint, taken an activist approach to overturning any consumer rights cases in its path. They have had an agenda. And their agenda has outweighed any adherence to judicial restraint or reluctance to overrule settled precedent. Having an agenda eliminates any presence of impartiality. Without impartiality, the court becomes political. Take for example, the decision of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission! Before the court was the issue of whether the McCain-Feingold Act could bar the broadcast of a politically driven documentary about a presidential candidate by cable companies on an on-demand basis. Rather than rule on the narrow grounds presented and hold that the on-demand broadcasts were not susceptible to the Act, or that documentaries were not addressed by the Act, this court, two months after hearing the initial arguments, took the unnecessary step of expanding the issues and ordered the parties to brief whether the court should overrule the Austin and McConnell cases. Cases that really had nothing to do with whether the documentary fell under the cited act; but cases restricting corporations from funding campaigns outside the use of allowed Political Action Committees. Apparently, the promotion of corporate interests by funding candidates through PACs was not enough for this court. It has an agenda and took this opportunity to further its agenda rather than adhere to its pose of judicial restraint. Thus, the court took a political approach in its review of the case. And, to further this view, Alito, by engaging in theatrics when Obama voiced his objections to the decision, waived any hint of impartiality and became defensive, showing it was personal and, as such, political.