President Obama said his administration will talk to bipartisan congressional leaders to "develop a forceful response" to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which he panned as a "green light to...special interest money."

Which special interests?

"[B]ig oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans," his statement said, arguing that the ruling gives such groups "and their lobbyists" power to drown out the influence of small-dollar donors.

Members also reacted. Considering the case concerns laws that some of them wrote and all of them were subject to as they campaigned, it's a personal topic for some lawmakers.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY., was partially vindicated when the Court overturned a piece of a precedent that bore his name. He hailed the ruling as "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights" of political participants. "By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers."

Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and John McCain, R-Ariz., lamented the Court's decision to invalidate a piece of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which they crafted and crusaded for earlier in the decade.

Feingold called the decision a "terrible mistake," criticizing the Court for issuing a sweeping decision to a "narrow legal issue." Feingold said he would work toward new legislation aimed at "restoring...critical restraints on corporate control of our elections."

McCain said he is "disappointed" with the decision, and along with Feingold, pointed out that part of BCRA (including the ban on soft money contributions) still stands.

Another BCRA-defender, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., called the decision "scandalous" and "un-American." He said Americans will be "furious" about special interest influence in the aftermath of the decision.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., seized the opportunity to promote the Fair Elections Now Act, a public-financing bill aimed at congressional elections. Many regulation advocates are pushing for it as a palliative measure in the aftermath of the decision.

Larson said today that his bill would "take the influence of big money out of our campaign finance system while abiding by today's Supreme Court ruling on this issue." Read an Insider Interview with Larson about how his proposal might fare in light of this Court case here.