By Olympia Duhart

Call it a victory for free speech.

So say the proponents of the recent Supreme Court case banning limits on corporate spending for political campaigns. Backers of the controversial ruling say that at its best, the case stands for the proposition that government should not be in the business of regulating political speech – long afforded the most stringent First Amendment protection.

But opponents say the case is a virtual death-knell for the political candidate determined to break free of corporate interference. Essentially, they say, democracy is dead. Or at least on life support. Opponents fear the ruling will forever transform American politics, and usher in a wave of politicians-for-hire buoyed by a flood of corporate dollars. Immediate implications will be felt as early as this year’s congressional elections. Long-term, the ruling on federal campaign expenditures will no doubt trickle down to elections at the state and local levels.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations are allowed to dip into their deep pockets to spend money to help elect or defeat candidates. In fact, they can spend all they want to support or oppose any candidate. The case effectively rolls back decades of restrictions on political campaign expenditures by corporations. Emboldened by the decision, opponents of restrictions on campaign finance are likely to make more challenges to campaign finance law in the name of Free Speech.

After Citizens United, companies can now spend as much as they want to show opposition to or support for an individual candidate. Yes, unlimited spending. The case significantly limits a large portion of the McCain-Feingold provisions; it opens the door for corporations to use their profits to advertise in favor of or against candidates. McCain-Feingold, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, banned corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is “electioneering communication” or for speech that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.

Under Citizens United, disclaimers – which provide information to the viewers – and disclosures – which identify the advertising sponsor – are required. The rules regulating direct contributions and contributions from political action committees are still in place. In various circles, the case has been criticized as an “anything goes” case on campaign financing and celebrated as a major victory for free speech.

President Barack Obama even weighed in on the decision. He has not concealed his disappointment with the ruling. In a statement, President Obama decried the ruling as a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

And in the slam heard around the world, he checked the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address. Standing in the United States Capitol surrounded by his colleagues, President Obama criticized the decision as opening “the floodgates” for special interest groups to influence elections. The right-wing justices, shrouded in black robes and staring him down, did not look impressed. Especially Justice Samuel Alito. But wasn’t it partisan politics as usual? The conservative majority on the court opened the floodgates for the traditionally-GOP-tilting corporate world to control the political system. Already, advocacy groups and legislators are mobilizing to fight the decision. Several lawmakers have proposed legislation directly aimed at undoing Citizens United. There are also proposals to amend the Constitution to enable Congress to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. Much like the debate on healthcare reform, the debate over Citizens United says as much about the viability of the Democratic Party as it does about the substantive issues. It also says a lot about the value placed on representative government.

Justice John Paul Stevens penned a scathing 90-page dissent that warned against the dangers of guarding corporate speech with the same protective measures afforded to individuals. Said Stevens: “The Court operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress’ most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics.”

Justice Clarence Thomas joined with the conservative bloc on its central point. No surprise there.

But what does the decision mean for black politicians? If corporate giants can make unlimited expenditures supporting advertisements for the candidates of their choice, how many are going to throw their dollars and support behind a minority candidate? How will the campaign contributions from big business impact black politicians looking for support? Already, analysts are predicting a boost in GOP candidates. Aided, no doubt, by big business, big bucks and bigger advertisements.

How will the decision impact black candidates at the local, state and national level? Will districts that are historically black be able to maintain their representation? What about districts that are split significantly between color lines?

Of course the analysis rests on assumptions about both corporate spending and convergence with minority interests.

But let’s take a look at the big spenders in the lobbying industry for some guidance. Second only to the United States Chamber of Commerce, ExxonMobil spent more than $27 million on lobbying in 2009. Hello oil companies and goodbye participatory democracy. Corporate profits may also offer some insight. In an interview with The Washington Post, Sen. Russell Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin and co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, said profits of “Fortune 500 companies in 2008 alone were 350 times the entire amount spent on the last presidential election.”

President Obama was credited during his campaign for rewriting campaign financing. Thanks to the internet and extraordinary support in the form of multiple, relatively small donations, President Obama raised more than $640 million – with more than 3.2 million donors. Multiple campaign contributors – many of whom donated $200 or less – went a long way to disperse the influence of a few significant contributors. Like his Republican counterpart, the President also raised a significant amount through traditional campaign bundlers. Together, President Obama and John McCain amassed close to $1 billion for the 2008 campaign.

Still, that figure is barely a drop in the bucket when weighed against the general treasury dollars of Fortune 500 companies. ExxonMobil, for instance, topped the Fortune 500 list in 2008. The oil giant made $442.85 billion in revenue in 2008. It also raked in more than $45 billion in profit. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was number two on the same list. The retailer made $405.6 billion in revenue for 2008; its annual profit was $13.4 billion. The long-standing affinity between big oil, big business and Republicans on Capitol Hill is no surprise to anyone. And with such a massive disparity between even the best fund-raisers and the most successful corporate giants, it is hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that special-interest cash is king. That is exactly what makes the Citizens United case so troubling.

“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,” wrote Justice Stevens. “It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.”

The timing sure is strange. The Citizens United case comes on the heels of the election of America’s first black president. The case sprang from restrictions surrounding the distribution of a critical film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a woman and candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections. The decision undermines much of the progress made through the utilization of techno-media to include many new faces – brown, black and working class – in the process of electing the president of the United States.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy defended the value of corporate speech as an important contribution to discussion, debate and dissemination of information. Justice Kennedy wrote that the First Amendment “confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.” Right. However, anyone who has been seduced for even a second by infomercials knows all too well that the power of suggestion is alive and well.

Is the majority of the Supreme Court really naïve enough to believe that corporate spending won’t influence decisions? And are we really supposed to believe corporate spending won’t negatively impact the success rate of black candidates?

Proponents of Citizens United say all of this talk is explosive and unwarranted. The corporate influence to be unleashed will be reigned in – they say – by lots of factors. Consumer boycott. Shareholder backlash. Self-restraint. In other words – expect a miracle.

There is an adage about the First Amendment that states: “Freedom of Speech isn’t Free.” Given the corporate coffers kicked open with Citizens United, that phrase has taken on new meaning today. How much this “free speech” will cost black candidates remains to be seen. Let’s hope theprice isn’t too high.

Olympia Duhart is an Associate Professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, where she teaches Constitutional Law, Women and the Law and Lawyering Skills and Values.