This would appear to be a case of judicial activism as the ruling serves as a direct check on power to the FEC and the executive branch as it invalidated aggregate contribution limits as violating the First Amendment of the Constitution. This judicial activism is justified by the majority decision stating that the limits on aggregate contribution appears to limit the individual liberties of the donors in favor of maintaining democratic equality among Americans
This would appear to be a case of ideology playing a role in judicial outcomes based on the non-unanimous opinions expressed by the judiciary. I feel that if the decision was based on fact and evidence alone, rather than the specific ideologies of the judges, the justices would of come to a more unanimous decision, rather than a 5-4 split decision.
I feel that this decision proves positive for those who would benefit from increased campaign finance as it serves to limit government intervention into campaign finance which will result in an additional availability of resources for campaigns. However this would appear to be negative for those who lack the financial resources with which to donate towards campaign finance you may wish to limit the contributions of those with more financial capitol to contribute as they may develop an unfair advantage.