Today, in the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. This was a landmark First Amendment case, and the ruling will overturn two decades of limitation on campaign finance spending. Spending by corporations from their general treasuries to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress is now unrestricted.

However, corporations must spend the money on their own initiatives and ads. They still cannot make unrestricted donations directly to a candidate. Essentially, what this does is to affirm the right of free speech for the stockholders.

At first glance, some thoughtful citizens may not like this result. Most of us feel that money corrupts politics, and do not like the idea that an election goes to the highest bidder (e.g., Bloomberg). But let’s consider an example that most conservatives and gun rights advocates will understand: Firearms manufacturers can create television ads supporting candidates that defend our Second Amendment rights. That puts it in a different light, doesn’t it?

As another example, an American sugar refinery could support a candidate who favored high taxes on imported foreign sugar, keeping jobs in the United States. Or, more specifically, Boeing can now spend big bucks to support the candidacy of U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahart (KS-4th) in his run for the senate as he fights to keep the Air Force from awarding its refueling tanker contract to European Aerospace and Defence Company — an all-out effort to save Boeing jobs in Wichita.

We all want to prevent the hijacking of our political process by nefarious organizations with deep pockets. But the way to do that is not by restricting free speech. Such sacrifice of principle is a cop-out that relieves us of our duty to remain well informed, so that no amount of costly propaganda can sway us from the right choices.

What we should do is to put in place laws requiring transparency in campaign finances. Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation makes this point:

Today’s decision underscores the necessity of creating comprehensive real-time disclosure for all election spending – across the board — from when and how often candidates, individuals and PACs report their contributions and expenditures to those involved in independent expenditures, issue ads or direct election advocacy.

Citizens United is an advocacy organization that describes its mission as follows:

Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens’ control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United’s goal is to restore the founding fathers’ vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

One of the ways that they do this is by creating videos that expose facts many politicians would rather not have in evidence. During the presidential primaries of 2008, they created a DVD titled Hillary: The Movie that detailed all the Clinton scandals. Because the movie was funded party with corporate contributions, the Federal Election Commission ruled that it was restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which at that time severely limited its distribution and airing. So that was the genesis of the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which they won today.