Um, Huh?

When it comes to commentary about yesterday's Supreme Court decision dealing with when a judge has to recuse himself from a case, this is about the weirdest criticism I've seen:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday against free political speech in judicial elections. While self-styled "reformers" cheer, fans of the First Amendment should be alarmed.

Wait, what? What does the First Amendment have to do with it?

Attempting to rule narrowly on due process grounds, the court managed to collaterally damage the First Amendment while crafting an unworkable standard that will chill independent political speech.

I'm still confused. The First Amendment keeps the government from restricting speech. In modern American, speech equals money. But how does this ruling impact your ability to spend and speak at will? Blow your millions on a judicial election. You'll only be deprived of the judge you got elected hearing your case. I still don't see how that's a bad thing.

Apparently the Center for Competitive Politics views the First Amendment as securing the right to purchase a rigged bench. How's that for a living Constitution!