The commentary on the WRTL decision will continue throughout the black out period (30 and 60 day pre-election period) as today's ruling is seen in action. Initial responses have begun, and here at OMB Watch, we are pleased with the safeguard in place for grassroots lobbying communications. However, others are concerned that today's opinion "will likely lead to a new proliferation of corporate and union funded campaign ads in the 2008 election season." The consequences are unknown, especially since clarity lays in the Chief Justice's view that "an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. WRTL's three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy under this test. First, their content is consistent with that of a genuine issue ad: . . . ." This new test announced by the Court is a bit broader than what a group of 17 charities (including OMB Watch) requested in an amicus brief filed in the case. Amici urged the Court to provide clarity and relief to section 501(c)(3) organizations since there are no exceptions for nonpartisan broadcasts. We will now see if the Federal Election Commission will issue any regulatory amendments. A post from Bob Bauer's blog moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com, "BCRA Ad Ban Bopped on the Head, Hard," provides some initial reaction. Bauer notes five clear points about the majority opinion. One point is an agreement with the lower courts' method of determining whether an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy, by way of looking at content not context. The New York Times has this article, "Justices Loosen Restrictions on Campaign Ads" and there will likely be many more additions to the SCOTUS blog.