The Supreme Court, in a stunning 5-to-4 vote on January 21, ruled that the government cannot restrict corporations from spending on elections.  Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and other voters in the majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, concluded that such a ban would violate the First Amendment rights of corporations and free speech.

With this decision, the Supreme Court effectively overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions preventing corporations from spending to promote or oppose candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld limitations on campaign contributions from corporations and unions.

Thursday’s decision also struck down a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold legislation.  This legislation, though limited by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, had banned the transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations if it served a purpose other than to support or rally against a candidate.

This most recent ruling could have vast effects on the American political system and the nature of elections. As a result of this decision, the government now holds less power over corporations’ political contributions, although it may still require corporations to disclose their spending and may prohibit corporations from directly contributing to a candidate’s campaign.

Justice Stevens and the three other dissenting justices argued that the “electioneering communications” or independent expenditures, which are now legal as a result of the majority’s decision, are no different than direct campaign contributions.  Stevens wrote that “the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degrees, not kind… and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”

Kennedy and the rest of the majority reasoned differently, stating that these so-called independent expenditures are simply corporations voicing their right to political speech. This is assuming, of course, that this speech was not directly coordinated with a political candidate.

The majority also stated in their decision that there was no conceivable way to distinguish between media corporations, who are exempt from such legislation, and other corporations.  The fear is that the government might have the power to suppress political speech in the media, if restrictions were allowed.

President Obama responded to the Supreme Court’s decision with a critical statement.  “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics… [which] will give the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington—while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidate.”  The President has pledged to work with Congress to immediately address this issue in an attempt to alter the Court’s verdict.