Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Will Voters' Choice Be Outdone by Sponsorship?

With the most expensive presidential and congressional campaigns behind us, do we really want to see more corporate money free-flowing behind special interests and political elections?

In what legal scholars have touted one of the most important First Amendment cases in years, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case could reverse a century's worth of campaign finance reforms.

According to Common Cause.org, the $3 billion tab on political and special interest advertising from last year's election could double to over $6 billion  if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the conservative non-profit group, Citizens United.

The case has campaign finance reformer and last year's Republican nominee Senator John McCain (R) speaking out. Along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D), McCain denounced Justice Antonin Scalia's support of turning around current strict financial restrictions. "Our elections would become like NASCAR races--underwritten by companies," Feingold said.

Although Scalia argued that this change would allow labor unions and small businesses to have a greater contribution in campaigns, the data does not support this. In 2008, corporate spending on campaigns spent over sixty times as much as labor unions did on lobbying interests.

Will the voters' choice be outdone by a fundraising and sponsorship arms race?