The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 2006 revolved around the issue of campaign finance and free speech rights for corporations and unions. The non-profit organization Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) had aired ads urging viewers to tell their senators not to filibuster judicial nominees, which was seen as a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition on corporate funding for electioneering communication within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. WRTL argued that its ads were not explicit advocacy but rather "grassroots lobbying." In this case, the court ruled in favor of WRTL stating that it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s freedom-of-speech provision if applied towards banning political advertisements from airing during blackout periods before elections unless these advertisements could clearly be defined as advocating for or against specific candidates.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision effectively overturned a recent precedent set by McConnell v. Federal Election Commission without sufficient justification or respect for stare decisis principles (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent). The dissenters believed that this ruling would open up loopholes allowing corporations and unions to fund electioneering communications, undermining campaign finance reform efforts aimed at limiting their influence on elections. They expressed concern about potential corruption and distortion of electoral process due to unchecked corporate spending. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "express advocacy" versus "issue advocacy", arguing that even ads not explicitly endorsing a candidate can still be intended to influence an election outcome.