I have been thinking of another aspect of this case.  One that obviates net neutrality, IMO.  The ruling against McCain-Feingold states that government does not have the power to create penalties (criminal or civil) that limit speech.  In the case of McCain-Feingold, the court ruled that it was enough to base its ruling simply on the assumption that the law "may" limit speech, without proof that it actually has.  I think this is reasonable.  Here is where it unravels:<p>There are other laws the government has passed that provide penalties as McCain-Feingold does.  A key example is broadcast spectrum sales.  The FCC has sold rights of public spectrum and provides criminal penalties for infringing on the use of that spectrum.  This of course creates third party arbiters of content and has provably limited speech.  Case in point: next week's SuperBowl will show an ad against abortion but has refused an ad for a gay dating site.  Political ads are refused all the time by major broadcasters when they do not suit the content arbiters.  I think the duplicity of the court lies in the cases they refuse to hear that should apply the same logic as this ruling.  Does anyone know of examples of such cases that have been refused or ruled against?