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.

Latham International, which makes swimming pools and parts such as liners, steps and ladders, said on Friday that a bankruptcy court approved a debt restructuring plan that will put the company into the hands of its lendersate Constitution through the initiative process.

Latham said it expects to come out of bankruptcy during the next few days.

The Latham, New York, company filed for bankruptcy in December in Delaware with a so-called prearranged plan in place that had the backing of the lenders that will now own it, including Littlejohn & Co, a private equity firm in Greenwich, Connecticut.

After further review, the U.S. Patent and Trademark review board's decision stands.

A federal appeals court rejected South Carolina's petition to use the letters "USC" on the Fighting Gamecocks baseball team's uniforms. The decision upholds the Patent and Trademark Office board's ruling regarding the University of Southern California's claim to the logo.

Scott Edelman, an attorney representing USC, -- the LA USC -- said the ruling protects the school's "primary athletic mark." He said the logo, used on team clothing and equipment, brings in significant revenue.

Nobody would confuse a Trojan for a Gamecock, but he said people might mistake South Carolina merchandise for Trojan merchandise if the garnet-and-black of South Carolina and the cardinal-and-gold of Southern California both carried the same "USC" logo.