The Supreme Court just handed down the decision in the Citizens United case -- ruling in favor of corporate spending in elections. We'll have more on this later today, but here is Mark Schmitt's preview of the case's implications:
Corporations can and already do spend millions to influence policies that affect them, whether through lobbying or public communications. If they want to influence elections, they can do so through political action committees or through independent spending that doesn't run afoul of BCRA. Consider that here we are in the middle of a period in which health reform, financial regulatory reform, and climate-change legislation are all either blocked or dramatically compromised by corporate spending and influence, in all its forms. Does anyone really believe that without the emaciated remnants of campaign-finance law it would be that much worse?
--The Editors
