A lot of Americans, when they heard the news that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, trade associations, unions and not-for-profit groups could pump as much money as they wanted into the campaigns of candidates of their liking in upcoming federal elections, naturally thought that meant they could actually contribute unfettered amounts of money directly into the coffers of the candidates. Not so. What the ruling actually did was allow for those entities like AT&T, Aetna, Teachers unions, the AFL-CIO, et cetera to throw all the money they wanted towards advertisements for or against the federal candidates of their choice. Big difference, kinda sorta.

The ruling basically now allows big corporate dogs to air their political ads in the same light as those that are aired by the candidates themselves. This has lots of opponents of the ruling crying foul. It has lots of folks saying that big money will now be the deciding factor in every federal race run from now on.

In the majority opinion in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Does saying so make it so? Do the justices of the Supreme Court really believe that allowing big corporations to spend untold amounts of money for or against candidates for U.S. Congress and even the Presidency won’t make a difference in the way our elections turn out?

It is important to note that Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling and Justice Stevens, in the dissenting opinion wrote:

"The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The financial resources, legal structure and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

Among those who believe the ruling has opened the floodgates for corporate money to flow into the nation’s electoral process claim that this truly could make or break a candidacy at the last minute when whomever has the most advertising dollars can essentially crush their opponents. Said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, "[T]he decision will unleash unprecedented amounts of corporate 'influence-seeking' money on our elections and create unprecedented opportunities for corporate 'influence-buying' corruption."

There are those who say that money from wealthy individuals, trade unions, and corporations has always found its way into our electoral process one way or another and this really won’t make a big difference. Evidently, President Barack Obama disagrees with that assessment. In his State of the Union Address presented to Joint Sessions of Congress after the ruling, the President addressed the ruling specifically and promised to work with Congress on finding ways to legislatively correct what he perceived to be a ruling that opens the door to “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests.”

With the 2010 Senate elections looming on the horizon, no one will have to wait long to find out if, indeed, this most unusual ruling will open the floodgates of big money and influence on our electoral process.

Source: Supreme Court Gives Corporations, Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political Messaging by Michael Beckel, OpenSecrets.org