reason.com in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the State of Arizona public financing of campaigns case

From a reason.com article, which doesn't offer reader commenting; for details, please read the entire article.

"The goals and essential features of Arizona's Clean Elections system are similar to those of the so-called Millionaire's Amendment, a provision of federal law that raised contribution limits for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents. The Supreme Court overturned that rule in 2008, concluding that it imposed an unjustified burden on freedom of speech. If anything, Arizona's system—which provides actual money, not just permission to take more of it from each donor—is even more objectionable. 

The likely demise of Arizona's law does not mean that public financing in general is unconstitutional. But at a time of fiscal reckoning, the last thing the government should be doing with taxpayer money is funding candidates who prefer forcibly extracting subsidies from their fellow citizens to seeking their voluntary support."

Now, for the sake of debate, let's ponder any U.S. Constitution reasoning for this decision.  Why should a citizen in our republican system of government need to approve the rescinding of a passed legislative act? What gives a federal court the right to rescind democratically a passed legislative act?  Or am I outside the bounds of this issue?

Thanks to Election Law Blog for a link to the article.

Remember, "voting turnout and activism means spreading the word!"