( CNN ) -- For everyone licking their wounds after Thursday 's landmark 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission , worried that the evil corporations are now poised to ruin American democracy once and for all , in the bogus name of free speech , here 's a word of potential hope : I used to be one of you , too , and today I 'm happy as a clam . Maybe you can be too , eventually . Here 's why : . Free speech really does mean free speech , and the laws that the `` Citizens '' ruling overturned directly and heinously restricted the stuff . Forget for the moment the broad characterization of the ruling -- such as The New York Times claim that it `` sweep [ s ] aside a century-old understanding '' -- and drill down to the individual case in question . Citizens United , a conservative 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years , produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled `` Hillary : The Movie . '' By a decision of the federal government , which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ( known more broadly as McCain-Feingold ) , this piece of political speech was banned from television . iReporter : Supreme Court ends real democracy . Let 's boil it down to the essential words : Political documentary , banned , government . You do n't have to be a First Amendment purist to intuit that political speech was , if anything , the most urgent subcategory covered by the First Amendment 's `` Congress shall pass no law '' restrictions . And you do n't have to be a Hillary-hater to imagine the shoe on the other foot . What if MoveOn.org 's 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) , Campaign to Defend America , had been blocked by George W. Bush 's Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting `` McCain : The Movie '' ? Would n't that stink , too ? As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion , `` The law before us is an outright ban , backed by criminal sanctions . Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations -- including nonprofit advocacy corporations -- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election . ... If the First Amendment has any force , it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens , or associations of citizens , for simply engaging in political speech . '' We are living in a fragmented media age in which many nontraditional sources are producing journalism , even and especially of the advocacy variety ( my opinion magazine , Reason , is funded by a nonprofit 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) . Why should nonprofit journalism producers -- like the Sierra Club , say -- have to ask for the government 's permission to send a political documentary across the airwaves ? For many liberals I know , the free-speech objection to campaign-finance law is just a smokescreen for enabling corporate villainy . I mean , Mitch McConnell cares about the First Amendment ? I used to think that way , too . But try this exercise : Check out the free-speech objections by people who do n't want Goldman Sachs to take over the West Wing , or Wal-Mart to bulldoze private residences . I 'm talking about anti-corporatist crusaders like Tim Carney , anti-eminent domain-abuse litigators like the Institute of Justice , or even former Federal Elections Commission chief Brad Smith . And for those many who claim to be First Amendment absolutists while also supporting McCain-Feingold -- I 'm looking at you , some of my fellow journalists -- here 's a question that the former begs of the latter : What if you 're wrong ? Even if you just ca n't bring yourself to believe that people who take civil liberties seriously have long-held serious civil libertarian criticisms of campaign-finance laws , or if you simply think they 're all wrong , I 'll offer this last salve : It has never been easier for groups of citizens to swarm together and flow money through the Internet toward campaigns and candidates who excite them . Ask Ron Paul -- or more relevantly , Barack Obama -- what 's more powerful : $ 10 million from Dr . Evil Industries , or $ 10 each from 1 million people who can actually vote ? The American people are not sheep , eager to be led by the highest bidder . As the Supreme Court rightly noted today , `` The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves . '' The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Matt Welch .
Supreme Court ruling does n't represent a step backward , says Matt Welch . Score: 6 Welch says people are n't sheep ; can make decisions about campaign advertising . He says ruling will allow wide variety of advocacy groups to air points of view .