June 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court gave companies, labor unions and interest groups more power to run broadcast ads before elections, limiting the reach of a federal campaign-finance law.

The 5-4 ruling today marks a shift for the court, which in 2003 upheld the law, including a provision that restricts pre- election ads. The court today said that provision couldn't be constitutionally applied to three 2004 ads, aired by a Wisconsin anti-abortion group, that called on the U.S. Senate to hold votes on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

``Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. ``Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.''

The ruling underscores the influence of Roberts and fellow Bush appointee Samuel Alito, who joined the chief justice's opinion. The three other justices in the majority -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy -- said they would have gone further by overturning the 2003 ruling and striking down the so-called electioneering provision.

In dissent, Justice David Souter said the court had in effect overturned the 2003 decision and its effort to limit the role of money in political campaigns.

``After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention,'' Souter wrote. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined him in dissent.

Feingold Candidacy

The ads by Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. referred to Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who was up for re-election and joined Senate efforts to block votes on Bush's judicial nominees. Feingold, along with Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, was also one of the principal sponsors of the 2002 campaign- finance law.

Wisconsin Right to Life, which also opposes euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, pulled its ads after three weeks because of legal concerns.

The McCain-Feingold law bars corporations and labor unions from using funds from their general treasuries to buy pre- election broadcast ads that target specific federal candidates.

Roberts said the Wisconsin commercials were entitled to an exemption from that ban because they ``plainly are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy'' for or against a candidate.

PAC Money

The electioneering ban applies only to money in the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions, not to funds handled by their separate political action committees. The law also contains an exemption for some non-profit corporations. The Wisconsin group didn't qualify for the exemption.

The Supreme Court has said lawmakers can restrict election- related spending in the name of preventing corruption, protecting the integrity of the voting process and preserving public confidence in the government. Roberts today said none of those rationales warranted application of the law to the Wisconsin ads.

The case marked the third time the Supreme Court addressed the so-called electioneering provision. In 2003, the court upheld the ban as part of a broader ruling that backed the campaign finance overhaul. Last year the court clarified that ruling by saying it didn't prevent Wisconsin Right to Life from challenging the applicability of the restriction to particular ads.

The Bush administration argued in favor of applying the law to the Wisconsin ads. The administration said the ads began running days after the last Senate vote on the filibusters that blocked consideration of several of Bush's judicial nominees.

The cases are Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-969, and Federal Election Commission V. Wisconsin Right to Life, 06-970.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 25, 2007 11:51 EDT