HARRISBURG — The Legislature went too far in banning casino owners and executives from making any political campaign contributions, Pennsylvania's highest court ruled Thursday in wiping out what had been touted as a major bulwark against the gambling industry's influence.

The Supreme Court said the law's approach to banning all contributions was an overly broad and harmful attempt to combat corruption — or even just the appearance of corruption — that violated the state constitution's guarantee of free speech.

Writing for the 5-1 majority, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille also said the blanket ban was out of step with the law's intent. In the law, lawmakers wrote that it was necessary to prevent corruption that may result from "large campaign contributions," but then went on to prohibit all such contributions.

Castille did not rule out the constitutionality of a limited ban that capped political campaign contributions from the gambling industry at a certain amount.

"A statute that limited the size of contributions, rather than absolutely prohibiting any contributions, would be more narrowly drawn to accomplish the stated goal," he wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Seamus McCaffery said the ban should be considered constitutional because a person who cannot make campaign contributions is not stopped from engaging in other, more direct forms of free speech. Besides, the intent of the ban should speak for itself, he wrote.

Philadelphia-area developer Peter DePaul, who sued to challenge the law in 2007, argued that the ban was a discriminatory infringement of the rights of free expression and association. DePaul, a part owner of as-yet-unbuilt Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia, also contended that the Legislature never justified the ban by looking into whether the gambling industry posed any risk of political corruption.

The ruling comes at a time when the state Legislature is considering bills that are drawing intense interest from the casino industry. A bill to legalize video poker machines in bars and clubs is heavily opposed by casinos.

Another bill would hand more gambling regulatory power to the attorney general. Also, legislation is slated to be introduced soon that would legalize table games at the state's slot-machine casinos, a bill likely to receive support from casino owners.

The contributions ban was part of the 2004 law that legalized slots, and had been considered the nation's broadest such restriction.

A handful of other states also have bans, including Michigan, New Jersey and Louisiana, although the bulk of states with casino-style gambling — including Colorado, Illinois, New York and Nevada — do not.

In a statement Tuesday, Rendell did not comment directly on the ruling, but said he has decided that "as long as I am governor, I will not accept contributions from casino owners and executives."