I have posted on my blog at this link
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_electionlaw_archive.html#200256746
a synthesized version of my thoughts since Friday about the BCRA decision. as the post shows, if the quote below is accurate, I am a member of the minority in not agreeing that the decision left "the majority of the Reform Act provisions intact."  From what I have read of others' opinions---including from off list messages sent to me---the quote appears wrong. If there is any "consensus" among legal experts who are not already representing parties in the litigation, it is that the result here is a mixed bag. No one can claim full victory or defeat.

But in the long term this is much ado about nothing. The lower court judgment will not stand as it is.  No one thinks it will. At most, the factual findings will have some relevance.

So why the spin? To influence members of the Supreme Court?
Rick

Bauer, Bob-WDC wrote:

I am travelling today and less able to rant and rave on our favorite
subject. I did note, however, the exchange between Don Simon and Rick Hasen
about whether Common Cause or perhaps other reform organizations had
questionably claimed "victory".
Without naming names, this is what one estimable organization offered today
as part of a general release and analysis of the subject:


"This week, a consensus has emerged among legal experts that the decision
left the majority of the Reform Act's provisions intact, although initial
press reports were correct in noting that two key provisions of the new
campaign finance regime were altered by the court (soft money and issue
advocacy).  Parties on both sides of the case have begun filing notices of
appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court."


A "consensus" among legal experts? Which "majority" of the
provisions--including the ones not decided onjusticiability grounds? And if
you believe, as I do, that no very serious constitutional issues impede
adoption of the hard money limit increases, then I would say that roughly
six core provisions" raising issues of that kind were before the Court:

1. National party soft money ban

2. State and local party soft money ban

3. Prohibition on officeholder and candidate fundraising

4. Coordination Provisions

5. The Party choice provision

6. Corporate and union "issue ads"

Now I have omitted the minor child contribution ban and some other
provisions--not unimportant but not of central importance.

I count four sections invalidated in whole or in part--i.e. not "intact". A
total of 66 per cent of the provisions--OTHER than minor children, also
invalidated--that were central to the reform effort and hotly disputed fall
in whole or in part to constitutional challenge.
This is not "spin"?