Floodgates open for election spending

Last week's State of the Union address made very evident that after a year in office, Obama's America isn't quite what. he thought it would be. Obama appeared more than a little cranky.

He's not happy with the Senate for delaying everything he proposes. He's not happy with the House for bickering with the Senate. And he's especially not happy with the Supreme Court.

And on that last score, Obama might have good reason for his anger.

"Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," the president said.

What Obama was referring to was the recent (and very controversial) 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding campaign finance contributions.

We know what you're thinking: "Ugh. Campaign finance contributions."

Don't let yourself get turned off by legal babble - the decision basically says that corporations and unions now have the right to spend as much money as they want on their own advertisements to support (or tarnish) a candidate running for public office.

Until now, corporations and unions were prohibited from directly sponsoring campaign advertisements. Instead, those advertisements had to be funded directly by the candidate's campaign (as evidenced by the fine print on the commercials and the "I'm so-and-so and I approve this message" line) or by 'political action committees' (PACs).

Corporations and unions were, at least in theory, cut out of the advertising loop.

They couldn't spend their own money-instead, their individual employees or members had to donate their own money to a candidate's campaign or political action committee. These donations had spending limits, usually capped at $5,000 per person.

With the new court decision, however, corporations and unions can now open their pocketbooks and let the money fly. If they like a candidate, they can spend any amount to pay for advertisements to help that candidate get elected. Likewise, they can spend any amount to pay for ads that make sure another candidate's election bid comes to a crashing halt.

If an elected official stands up to a special interest group, the group can promise to spend whatever it takes to bring them down. Then they can keep their promise.

What's more, corporations and unions can now continue their spending bonanzas right up to Election Day, a significant departure from the old McCain-Feingold Act that tried to calm the airwaves for the final weeks leading up to an election.

Although Obama whiffed a bit on the details (the decision actually left in place the century-old law preventing direct corporate financing to candidates), he was right on point about what it means.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Justice Samuel Alito, who should know by now that he is always on camera, visibly disagreed, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true."

If Alito disagreed with anything aside from the "century-old law" gaff, he's wrong.

This decision has the power to radically change the face of American elections.

Now let's not kid ourselves - it's not like corporations have never had a say about the goings-on in elections or campaign financing (see: political action committees).

But these new measures allow corporations and unions to double-dip, financing campaigns through PACs while independently producing advertisements on TV, radio and in print.

The new decision grants corporations the same protections for political speech under the First Amendment as you or I: the same protections that are extended to individuals. Along the way, it overturned two of the Supreme Court's campaign finance decisions and upended a multitude of laws.

So what's the big deal? It's just a couple of ads, right?

Wrong.

The New York Times reports that more than $450 million was spent on campaign ads from April to November of 2008.

Obama outspent McCain $236 million to $126 million on television ads alone. That's more than a quarter of a billion dollars on ads from the winning candidate.

This may seem like common sense, but just as advertisements equal victory in business, advertisements equal victory in politics. Bombard people with enough information about candidates and something is bound to pique their interest or rile their anger.

Make no mistake: a $15 million independent ad campaign can buy as much influence as a $15 million contribution to a candidate can, if for no other reason than it's likely what the candidate would have spent the money on anyway.

Obama called the court's decision "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 he's probably right.

We can't ignore that corporations exist and will continue to exist forever and ever until the end of time. We can't ignore that they'll find ways to influence individuals and politics alike, and while it accomplishes little to be bitter about it, we should at least put up a fight.

Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees.