Discuss as:

A contrarian take on SCOTUS decision

From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, we summarized GOP lawyer Ben Ginsberg's thoughts on yesterday's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance.

Here's another -- and more contrarian -- take from Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg:

1) A Tragedy. Just as both parties were beginning to successfully adopt the bottom-up, people-centered, democracy-strengthening model of politics of the new internet age, the Supreme Court blows the system to pieces.  The decision will no doubt tilt a system that was evolving into a more people based model back towards one where privilege and money will have more sway.

2) A Lot of Companies Are Not Going to Join In. Yet. Running ads with their name on it in contested races is not something a lot of companies are going to want to do.  Publicly traded companies are by nature risk adverse, and I think given how late in the cycle it is, how controversial the decision was even inside the Court itself, how directly they will be able to be attacked by a candidate or Party for running an ad that you just won't see a ton of these ads this initial cycle.

In fact I would encourage companies to take a position right now that they aren't going to do these kind of ads this cycle to avoid the pressure that is sure to come from both parties and individual candidates. Just say no.

3) This Could Become A Big Problem for Republicans. The Republicans have picked themselves off the floor in recent months by running as champions of the middle class. Having big corporate America come in on behalf of a candidate will almost certainly guarantee that a candidate becomes tarred as taking the side of big corporations against the average guy, something this cycle that could be deadly. The GOP better think twice about their newly populist brand before celebrating this decision too much.

4) The Democrats Should Try to Pass A Bill Tilting the System Back Towards People. There are a lot of ways to do this but the Democrats should stand on principle here and demonstrate they want the system to be biased towards broad, people-based participation not towards aggregated privilege, power and wealth.  Will fit nicely into their emerging people-based economic message.