But no. It’s not the same thing at all. It’s the opposite. It’s the differences between these cases that define them.

In Citizens United, the nation’s top court lifted restrictions on corporate spending on advertising– restrictions that had long been in place. In Dallman, Colorado’s top court refused to allow to stand new restrictions on direct campaign donations.

Citizens United was taken on by an activist conservative Supreme Court intent on broadening the right to political expression for corporations. Dallman was the result of conservative special interests in Colorado pushing to limit the political speech of labor unions and union members, among others.

The first case is about campaign advertising and censorship. The second is about campaign donations and pay-to-play corruption.

Corporations have been banned for years from advertising in the weeks before elections, partly because corporations are not technically voting citizens of the country and partly because they have the kind of resources that few citizens can marshal to equally persuade voters– and that is to say nothing of the financial gain corporations can reap by steering elections. The public good is not part of the equation for corporations, which is to say nothing against them but rather only to acknowledge that corporations exist simply to generate profits. The Supreme Court in Citizens United saw this ban on corporations as censorship and so saw it as unconstitutional.

Labor unions and their members in Colorado and elsewhere and all kinds of other government contractors and their family members have always enjoyed the right to support candidates for office through campaign donations. Amendment 54 sought to take away that right. The Colorado court threw out Amendment 54 as infringing on existing rights and struck it from the Constitution for likely being politically motivated and overreaching.

Citizens United may have been a “blow” to restrictions on political advertising. The Colorado Dallman ruling, however, was no “blow to restrictions on political giving.” On the contrary, it secured rights that have always been in place. In other words, Dallman restored rights temporarily assailed through the state’s infamously loose politically charged ballot initiative process.

Mixing the two rulings in a top-of-the-story hook amounts to some kind of artistic collage work that reveals mostly by what it conceals. Did the Post readers know what they were getting into with that story?

Contact the writer at jboven at coloradoindependent dot com. Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

In response, the Denver Post’s Jessica Fender did what journalists do: She reported the unfolding tweet controversy and collected up some reactions. Great. Then the Post editors weighed in by– what else?– taking to the Twitter and semi-ironically finger-wagging at old Schultheis. It was a Twitter spat, where the state Paper of Record made a fool of itself in a 140-character digital tweet-for-tat with one of the state’s most embarrassing elected officials.

See if the Post tweets don’t almost achieve the impossible and have you quietly cheering for crazy Schultheis:

Sen_Schultheis Don’t for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the U.S. Plane right into the ground at full speed. Let’s Roll

DenverPost_EdBoard @Sen_Schultheis: Don’t think we buy your claim you didn’t mean to equate the president with terrorists. No one is buying it.

DenverPost_EdBoard @Sen_Schultheis: We’re tired of the Birther culture you’re appealing to. Attack Obama on the merits of his agenda, but recognize Obama is sincere.

DenverPost_EdBoard @Sen_Schultheis: To believe that the American people elected a president intent on destroying the U.S. is hateful and absurd. Such debate is debasing.

DenverPost_EdBoard @Colorado_GOP: Demand that Sen. Schultheis apologize. Insist that your party keep its criticisms meaningful. The president isn’t a Manchurian destructor.

DenverPost_EdBoard Casting Obama as a terrorist trying to destroy the U.S. only hurts legitimate critics concerned about growth of gov spending and meddling.

This is not really what Twittering is all about. This is overkill. These are the tweets of a dad trying to be cool. Ugh. Colorado. It’s all so embarrassing.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.