This week, the Supreme Court made a highly-controversial decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which carries with it momentous political ramifications for the future of American elections. The decision has been receiving substantial attention from across the political spectrum and has found ample media outlet and speculation throughout the week.

Politically diverse interest groups and commentators are already offering critiques, ranging from the sincere to the dramatic in attempt to draw pointed focus on this issue. However, sharp political dissension is already characterizing this issue among Americans, much as it did within the Supreme Court, as evident in its narrow 5-4 final decision and in the majority and dissenting opinions.

Follow up:

To more fully understand the decision and its political effects it is first important to bring attention to the nature of the dispute, including the parties involved, and the language used in the published decision. The case centered on a conservative advocacy group, Citizens United, and its production, "Hillary: The Movie". Citizens United, along with every other non-profit and for-profit corporate entity, was previously prohibited by the McCain-Feingold Act (or the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act) to participate in "electioneering communication", which is candidate-specific political advertising presented in an attempt to unduly sway elections, immediately before elections occur. Specifically, through provisions in the McCain-Feingold Act, and in conjunction with previous court decisions (including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConell v. FEC), corporate entities were prohibited from spending from their private treasuries to buy advertising for or against a particular candidate (30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election).

These provisions existed to stem the tide of already heavy-handed corporate and interest-group influence in elections and to prevent those entities from commanding time in media with the purpose of steering political debate. Proponents of the McCain-Feingold expenditure/contribution limits saw them as a concerted bi-partisan effort to ensure democratic election and to prevent misguided political discourse (for the benefit of pointed corporate ideology). Opponents, like Citizens United, saw them as a violation of free speech rights, which should be afforded to all citizens (corporate and human alike), and moreover as discriminatory to candidates (predominantly conservatives) who rely on corporate contributions and influence during election cycles.

So, the first task of the Supreme Court was to decide if "Hillary: The Movie" was guilty of "electioneering communication" as it pertained to the McCain-Feingold legislation. In early 2009 they did just that, stating that it could be "susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her". Pointed, conservative propaganda films were not new territory for Citizens United whose other productions include: "ACLU at War With America", "HYPE The Obama Effect", "Rediscovering God in America" (part I and II), "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny". However, "Hillary: The Movie" got special attention, again because of the proximity of its release and advertising for that release to the primary elections, despite the legislative limitations described above.

The argument soon shifted however, from the violation of the McCain-Feingold Act, to the guarantee of Free Speech by the First Amendment to all citizens (again, corporate and human alike). After months of deliberation, five justices ruled that any limitation of corporate or non-corporate money used in "political free speech" was unconstitutional. Particularly, in examining expenditures that corporate or unionized entities make in elections meant to either promote or denounce a specific candidate or their respective platform, and specifically in the immediate lead-up to elections, the majority opinion was that "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. " This decision immediately sent political shockwaves across the United States and saw rise to very divergent opinions, even within the Supreme Court itself.

Dissenting Justice Stevens issued a particularly strong counter-argument, saying, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Among pundits and commentators, the debate over this ruling quickly became the subject of broadcasts. Conservative talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, decried that "Freedom is awaking from its coma". Newt Gingrich's Heritage Foundation's website quickly published an article titled "Citizens United v. FEC: A Landmark Decision in Favor of Free Speech". In addition, a Fox News op-ed was also posted titled, "Founding Fathers Smiling After Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling". All of these commentators, in coordination with their legislative counterparts, including Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Boehner (R-OH), and Representative John Cornyn (R-TX) sought to affirm emphatic support from the American political right. Senator McConnell had this to say of the decision, "For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day."

On the other side, left-wing commentators like Keith Olbermann, who in comparing this decision to the infamous Dred Scott decision, warned that "Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, this will now change. Unless this near mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute." Likewise, populist rage has been brewing, taking aim at the implications of the decision and those that made it. In one article from Veterans Today, the author loudly calls for the "IMMEDIATE ARREST OF 5 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES FOR TREASON".

This sharp populist condemnation also gave rise to articles across a slew of centrist and left-leaning forums like Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and RawStory. A new website was even formed to draw specific attention to the decision, aptly called FreeSpeechforPeople.org. It currently features the headline, "What did the Supreme Court just do to our democracy?" and includes a general call to responsive political action. Democratic politicians also have been speaking out, including Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) who launched his own website, SaveDemocracy.net, which features a petition meant to be signed in support of six pieces of legislation he is personally introducing in a pointed attempt to counteract the effects of the Supreme Court decision. Of course, most notable of the Democratic responses came from President Obama, where in his weekly address he says bluntly, "This ruling strikes at our democracy itself". He went on to say, "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way - or to punish those who don't."

Various watchdog groups and even corporations themselves are bringing attention to the troubling specifics of this decision as well, and are calling for immediate action to be taken. Both The Sunlight Foundation (a transparency-in-government watchdog organization) and Newsweek, brought focus to the new and largely unanswered question of foreign influence in future campaigns. Contending that as most large businesses are now owned by foreign entities, there is legitimate concern over unregulated foreign influence in American national elections. The Supreme Court, as presented in their decision, seems to see no distinction in domestic over foreign or "multi-national" corporations and maintains a strong air of permissiveness, writing, "Because §441b is not limited to corporations or associations created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders, it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation's political process." Throughout the decision, this stance is reaffirmed several times.

In an interesting development which substantiates the proclaimed fears of governmental "prostitution", 41 large corporations and industry leaders, including Delta Airlines, Metlife and others, in coordination with consumer advocacy groups, have called for immediate and strong legislative action to be taken to combat this decision. In open letters to the House and Senate, these business leaders claim that, "many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress," and that "with additional money flowing into the system due to the Court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase." These letters are a rare affirmation of the already prevalent issues with American political representation and campaign financing and offer sincere insight into the nature of the problem the Court's decision has caused.

Ideologically speaking, as free speech is being applied to corporate entities, two things have to be considered from a citizen's point of view. The first is the incentive for corporations, as opposed to human citizens, to get involved in the political process. The average citizen has personal economic incentives, personal political incentives, personal value or faith-based incentives and typically a whole range of other motivating factors to participate in elections. Corporate entities have one: profit. This is significant because it's the critical distinction between union involvement and corporate involvement as well. Whereas unions represent a coalition of domestic citizens working towards more tangible, realizable goals for their members (sometimes economic policy, other times rights-based or welfare-focused legislation, etc.), corporations again have one focus: economic advantage. With international trade the way it is today, corporate leaders are far more likely to consider their immediate benefit (often at the cost of the aggregate American benefit) in delineating their political focus.

There is scarcely a time that corporate influence in politics has reflected America's best interest. Corporate contributions from Wall Street flooded the last election, the end result of which is a still dangerous lack of economic regulation. Corporate influence in the EPA has eroded the organization's ability to protect the environment and citizens at even small costs to the businesses producing the damage. Health Insurance corporations have severely derailed almost every meaningful element of the proposed universal health care initiative. The examples are endless, from corporate influence in the USDA, to the strangle-hold of the military-industrial complex; however, be it on a small or large scale, it is evident time and again that corporate influence in politics can only spell disaster and disenfranchisement for the normal citizen.

A second critical point to consider is the ability of corporations, again as opposed to human citizens, to get involved and to what degree. With relatively infinite time and resources, corporate entities can out-think and out-spend almost each and every one of us. The very few Americans who have the time and money to match up with corporate influence are often heads of corporations themselves or are in some way dependent on corporations for their livelihood. A strong example of this is corporate media. Few reporters will have the gall to address eminent issues if it could, in some way, affect their advertising income. FreeSpeechforPeople.org makes this more clear, "In 2008 the Fortune 100 corporations had $600 billion in profits. Now imagine that those top 100 companies decided to spend a modest 1 percent of their profits to intervene in our politics and to get their way. That would mean $6 billion... or double what the Obama campaign spent, the McCain campaign spent, and every candidate for House and Senate [in 2008]."

Overall, it is critical that the decision the Supreme Court has made be understood by every American citizen and addressed in a politically timely and responsible manner by our representatives, for nothing less than the very soul of our democracy. It is ironic that the potential future inability of America's democratic mechanisms rest on an organization that, in stripping the relative rights of average citizens, maintains the tagline "DEDICATED TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY TO CITIZEN CONTROL" and moreover, that the specific branch of our government meant to stay above political pandering is barreling us headfirst into it. The tools for an informed citizen are out there, and, as Americans now is our time to utilize them.