With all the big Supreme Court decisions that just came down, one of them hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

And that’s the one on campaign finance.

In a horrendous move, the Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, to outlaw the part of McCain-Feingold that tried to level the playing field between super-rich candidates and everybody else.

McCain-Feingold allowed challengers to raise in excess of the regular amounts if the Money-Bags Candidate was throwing it around.

Samuel Alito ruled for the majority, saying that the rich candidates who spend a lot on their own campaigns are simply engaging in more robust speech than others, and shouldn’t be effectively penalized for doing so.

That’s taking the money equals speech equation to its absurd limits.

And, as Justice Stevens pointed out in dissent, even if you accept that money equals speech, “The Millionaire’s Amendment quiets no speech at all.” Instead, it enhances the speech of the challenger.

Said Stevens: “Enhancing the speech of the millionaire’s opponent, far from contravening the First Amendment, actually advances its core principles. If only one candidate can make himself heard, the voter’s ability to make an informed choice is impaired.”

Alito’s decision casts doubt on clean campaign laws that are on the books in several states, which offer a match of public financing to candidates who are up against Candidate Got Gelt.

And as a result, our legislatures, state and federal, will increasingly be millionaire’s clubs.