Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The Supreme Court struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that prohibited organizations without contribution limits from running "issue ads" that mention a candidate for federal election either 30 days before a primary of 60 days before a general election.

The Bush Administration and a coalition of ACLU leaders supported restricting issue ads while some labor unions and advocacy groups sided with Wisconsin Right to Life, a party to the suit which tried to run ads asking voters to contact Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to stop filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominations.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports on a new ad being run in Pennsylvania by the pro-choice, moderate Republican group “Real Republican Majority.” The ad asks the question, “What is the Republican Party today?” It then contrasts Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan with the likes of Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The group bought the ad time before the election, banking on a defeat of Santorum and Republicans in general.

The original version of the ad featured local favorites Arlen Specter and Tom Ridge among the moderate heroes of the Republican Party. But in the end neither man wanted to be associated with the group or its message and both were dropped from the final cut. In a letter to the group Mr. Specter stated, "I do not want to be associated with any advertisement that criticizes our fellow Republicans."

U.S. Senate candidate Bob Corker has Text a TV attack ad accusing his primary opponents of voting a pay raise for themselves as congressman, after said opponents argued that it was inaccurate.

The revision isn't all that dramatic, as it happens. The new version accuses his foes of voting "for a bill that the press said provided a $3,800 pay raise for themselves." And the foes are unsatisfied, still noting that all they did was not vote to block a congressional pay raise that's already automatic every year.