This is neither here nor there but the article as I had posted it was recast from its original title ("Risky Strategy Leads to Big Court Win," which I had used)

This is neither here nor there but the article as I had posted it was recast from its original title ("Risky Strategy Leads to Big Court Win," which I had used) to one that is actually inaccurate (since the legal case involved what might be called "issues advocacy" and not "corporate campaign contributions"). Just clarifying for anyone interested. By the way, the interest of this piece lies not so much in its description of the underlying legal case as it does in the human elements associated with it - its theme might be summarized as "how does a government attorney so overplay his hand - by vehemently asserting at oral argument that the law would render illegal virtually all forms of traditional advocacy that an entity might use in this context, e.g., books, pamphlets - that it transforms a little-known case that should have been decided on narrow issues into a major decision that explodes in the government's face?" That is the real drama of what happened here and it is interesting to observe this as a matter of legal strategy regardless of what one thinks of the decision in the case itself.