A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old restrictions on corporate campaign spending, reversing two of its precedents and freeing companies to conduct advertising campaigns that explicitly try to sway voters.

The 5-4 majority, invoking the Constitution's free-speech clause, said the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. The ruling went well beyond the circumstances in the case before the justices, a dispute over a documentary film attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

"When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

Companies, which had been barred since 1947 from using general-treasury dollars in support of or in opposition to a candidate, now can spend millions of dollars on their own campaign ads, potentially punishing or rewarding lawmakers for their votes on legislation. Labor unions, though they weren't directly at issue in the case, have been subject to the same restrictions and may also now expand their political spending.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of an Alabama man who claimed his attorneys failed to present key evidence of his borderline mental retardation. The justices said the defense made a strategic decision, not a negligent omission.

Holly Wood shot and killed his ex-girlfriend as she slept in her Troy, Ala., home in 1993. Wood lost his appeal in state court, but won habeas relief in federal court. The district court criticized the defense for putting an inexperienced attorney in charge of the penalty phase. According to the federal judge, the state court's holdings constituted "an unreasonable application of federal law."

It ordered the state to either resentence Wood to life without parole or conduct a new sentencing hearing.The Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit's reversal, saying it wasn't "unreasonable" to conclude that Wood's attorneys had made a strategic decision not to introduce evidence of Wood's mental deficiencies.
   
"Most of the evidence Wood highlights ... speaks not to whether counsel made a strategic decision, but rather to whether counsel's judgment was reasonable - a question we do not reach," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the 7-2 majority.

The end was almost certainly worse than what Kwame Kilpatrick expected.

Grilled for six days on the witness stand -- his integrity questioned by prosecutors who said that if they couldn't send him to jail, they'd settle for $225,000 -- Kilpatrick's restitution hearing ended after four months Wednesday with a judge calling him a liar and demanding he cut a check for far more than even prosecutors expected.

"You have not been credible in this courtroom and you, again, have not been honest to the City of Detroit," Wayne County Circuit Judge David Groner told Kilpatrick, who sat stone-faced. "The court finds the defendant's conduct in this matter reprehensible."

Compounding the former mayor's woes was news that broke just as he arrived at court: His longtime friend and ex-mayoral aide, DeDan Milton, had been indicted on federal bribery and extortion charges, another indication the feds are tightening focus on Kilpatrick.