The Journal Editorial Board gets it completely wrong... as usual:

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday, in an opinion on so-called issue ads, has done more than potentially gut a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The court imperils a measure pending in the state Assembly that would make such ads in state campaigns subject to disclosure and spending rules that candidates they attack must abide by.

The 5-4 ruling came in a case involving Wisconsin Right to Life. About three years ago, the anti-abortion group wanted to run ads urging voters to contact Sen. Russ Feingold and Wisconsin's other Democratic senator, Herb Kohl, over the issue of President Bush's judicial nominations.

But the group wanted to do this within two months of an election in which Feingold was seeking re-election. McCain-Feingold prohibits corporations and unions from using their treasuries for ads that mention federal candidates 60 days before a general election (30 days before a primary).
...
Our fear is that the ruling, no matter the FEC interpretation, will open the floodgates for unfettered attack ads funded by corporations and unions just before an election. It's a bad day for democracy.

There is no more important time to allow complete unfettered speech than before an election.  Many politicians, as well as the Journal Editorial Board, would rather have strictly control speech during this time.  However, creating blackout periods where certain speech is illegal also creates a period of legislative abuse.  This case showcases that perfectly.

Senators were using the McCain-Feingold blackout provision to try to get away with filibustering judicial nominees, while at the same time limiting what could be said against them.  Legislators already use the times before elections to push through pork, all sorts of other crap right before an election so they can brag about it to constituents.  If we limit speech during this time, that can only get worse.  Legislators running for election should face extreme scrutiny.  They should be blasted by constituents and advocacy groups.  If that means that fewer get re-elected, then that's a good thing.  Too many get re-elected as it is.  We should not have a political ruling class!  This is not a monarchy!

The Journal claims it's not censorship because they could have formed a PAC in order to speak.  Think about that for a moment.  They are suggesting that you should have to register with the government in order to criticize the government, and that this is a good thing.  The 1st Amendment is so damn clear on this, that it's not even debatable.  It makes me want to scream and wring necks.  God... what are we going to have to register for next?