The Supreme Court reversed a century of campaign-finance law Thursday morning when it ruled that corporations, unions, and nonprofits should be allowed to pour their financial resources into presidential and congressional campaigns. The majority decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy and the rest of the Court’s conservative wing, said that corporations have First Amendment rights and should be able to engage in political speech. 

In the 5–4 ruling, the majority said that “political speech is so ingrained in this county’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign-finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.” 

Today’s decision opens the door to limitless independent corporate spending. Corporations can pull together their financial resources to create television or radio commercials to support a political candidate. The ruling does not allow corporations to spend endless amounts of money on direct campaign contributions; money that would go specifically into the candidate's bank account to travel or produce campaign materials. As long as corporations don’t interact with a specific political campaign, they can directly buy ad time to support a candidate.

For example, a wealthy corporation can’t approach a candidate and ask a candidate, “would you like a check, or would you like the corporation to purchase a television commercial supporting your position on foreign policy?” says Edward Foley, law professor at Ohio State University College of Law and director of the election law program. Under campaign-finance law, this situation would not be considered an independent expenditure because it is made in consultation with the campaign and is functionally the equivalent of a campaign contribution. 

This ruling has the ability to affect both state and federal election laws. The Court specifically wrote that corporations should have greater First Amendment freedoms, so even if a state law says that it doesn’t want corporations spending money on the governor’s election, today’s decision would invalidate that ban.

Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented. In their dissent, written by Stevens, the minority expressed its concern with increased corruption in politics. Stevens implied that big money can breed corruption, and the fact that the majority never addressed corporate corruption in its opinion makes him concerned. In a hearing today, Stevens said that corporations should not be given the same level of First Amendment protection for one simple reason—they aren’t human. Corporations don’t vote or run for political office, so they shouldn’t be placed on the same level as a U.S. citizen.

Last week, the Gaggle playfully mused that the outcome of this case could affect large-scale events, like the Super Bowl. Corporations have deep pockets to purchase expensive advertising spots like the coveted Super Bowl commercials. Now that the floodgates have opened for businesses to spend money on federal and presidential campaigns, our prediction might soon be reality.