The most recent issue of The Nation published a debate between Floyd Abrams and Burt Neuborne over the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. The online version of the article can be found here. The exchange is intelligent, lively, and engaging.
Still, I think that the authors miss one of the most interesting aspects of the case: that it serves as a jurisprudential Rorschach test for one's view of political liberty.
Some people believe that the preservation of liberty requires at least some regulation. Advocates for this position believe that the marketplace of ideas cannot survive, let alone flourish, unless it operates within constraints that help foster openness and fair play. This is the view reflected in the campaign restrictions that the Supreme Court held invalid.
Another view holds that regulation is inherently antithetical to the preservation of liberty. Advocates for this position believe that censorship in the cause of freedom is intellectually incoherent. This is the view embraced by those who see Citizens United as a triumph of First Amendment values.
I believe that either position is defensible. But I also believe that consistency matters here. Vacillation between these views suggests a jurisprudence of convenience, where the operative paradigm changes from case to case in order to achieve the outcome desired.
It will be interesting to see whether the Court's future First Amendment decisions are consistent with the expansive free market sensibility reflected in Citizens United. As to that, there can be no debate.