In a historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205—that the federal government cannot ban political spending by corporations in elections. Although eight of the nine justices did agree that Congress could require corporations to disclose their spending and run disclaimers with their advertisements— at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals.

The decision effectively permits unlimited independent spending by corporations and labor unions in support or opposition of particular candidates for president or Congress. The Court did not overturn the long-standing ban on direct corporate donations to candidates. 

In the rather bitter 5-4 decision, the Court overruled two important precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending in support or opposition to particular political candidates) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions).

The consequences of the ruling are expected to be far-reaching and dramatic, with campaign-finance experts predicting that the decision will reshape the way elections are conducted.

Reaction to the decision was mixed, with many Republicans cheering it and many Democrats vowing to fight it. Democrats are expected to conduct a number of hearings in the coming weeks as they seek to explore ways to re-implement the ban or mitigate the Court’s decision. Other critics of the decision advocate amending the U.S. Constitution to curtail corporations’ permissible election activities.

One group very pleased with the Court’s decision: local television stations, which are anticipating a record windfall in campaign spending during the upcoming midterm elections.

Tell us what you think. Join the NSBA Group on LinkedIn.