Here's a round up what influential people are saying today after the U.S. Supreme Court issued it's ruling in McComish v. Bennett.

And click here for a full round up McComish related news stories, statements, and press releases.

• Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent: "So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.”

• Fair Elections Now Act co-sponsor Rep. Michael Michaud in the Bangor Daily News: “Maine voters supported our clean elections system, it continues to have an extremely high participation rate, and it’s worked well for years,” Michaud said in a statement. “Those running for office should spend their time talking to voters and debating the issues, not worrying about raising money or being buried by special interest attack ads.”

• Public Campaign Action Fund Board Member and law professor Zepher Teachout in the New York Times: "Perhaps the most important part of the McComish opinion is what it doesn’t do. It struck down public disbursements that are triggered by another candidate's spending, or by another interest group's spending. But it did not touch public financing generally, and did not touch automatic matching funds."

• Professor election law blogger, Rick Hasen, in the New York Times: It wasn’t all bad news for campaign finance reformers in the Supreme Court decision stripping Arizona’s matching funds provision from its law giving public financing for state candidates. Among other things, the court confirmed that whether governments enact public financing is “not our business.”

• Public Campaign President & CEO, Nick Nyhart: "The five-vote big-money majority on the Court has spoken again in favor of wealthy special interests. Fortunately, the Court has left room for small-donor driven systems like the Fair Elections Now Act.”