The decision of the Seventh Circuit in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland, written by the Hon. Diane Sykes, is well done and clearly correct. It is not groundbreaking in light of the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court in WRTL v. FEC, FEC v. Davis v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC.
Those cases make clear that the only justification for restricting support for political speech is the risk of actual or apparent corruption. They also made clear that this justification is not served by restrictions on support for independent expenditures.
In so holding, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the state may restrict support for political speech by a desire to "level the playing field."
I think that the prior US Supreme Court decisions have it right but, whether or not you agree, the Seventh Circuit was bound to follow the implications of those holdings, That made Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland an easy case.
So congratulations again to Barbara Lyons, Sue Armacost and the good people at Wisconsin Right to Life, along with their lawyers, James Bopp, and my friend, Mike Dean.
This case does not address the aggregate limit on contributions to candidates. That is a somewhat different case although it may ultimately be resolved on the same rationale.