The Washington Post accurately describes how many people spent their day yesterday. "The political world scrambled yesterday to reckon with the Supreme Court's loosening of limits on 'soft money' expenditures and its implications for the 2008 campaign season: a potential surge in television advertisements paid for by unions and corporations that in recent years had fewer outlets for their cash." The editorials and new stories continue and the complexity of the case is made obvious in the vastly different interpretations where observers can find multiple points of both agreement and disagreement. An editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, takes issue with the ruling as a free speech victory because the speech in question is "free only if you can afford it." This editorial and many others in the main stream media ignore the impact on nonprofits, and no, they are typically not as wealthy as corporations, but were unfortunately scooped up in the electioneering communication ban. As the amicus brief from charities states; "Section 501(c)(3) organizations cannot accumulate commercial wealth to dominate the political debate; their resources, by law, must be devoted to public purposes."