This is neither here nor there but the article as I had posted it was recast from its original title ("Risky Strategy Leads to Big Court Win," which I had used) to one that is actually inaccurate (since the legal case involved what might be called "issues advocacy" and not "corporate campaign contributions"). Just clarifying for anyone interested.<p>By the way, the interest of this piece lies not so much in its description of the underlying legal case as it does in the human elements associated with it - its theme might be summarized as "how does a government attorney so overplay his hand - by vehemently asserting at oral argument that the law would render illegal virtually all forms of traditional advocacy that an entity might use in this context, e.g., books, pamphlets - that it transforms a little-known case that should have been decided on narrow issues into a major decision that explodes in the government's face?" <i>That</i> is the real drama of what happened here and it is interesting to observe this as a matter of legal strategy regardless of what one thinks of the decision in the case itself.