Americans should be very concerned by the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission. The conservative branch of the court has handed corporations, which already have significant influence over the political process, the ability to dominate it.In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations in elections violate the U.S. Constitution's free-speech protections. The ruling threatens our democracy. Corporations, labor unions and other powerful interest groups can now send this message to lawmakers - vote with us and we can spend a million bucks to get you re-elected; vote against us and we will bury you.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations in elections violate the U.S. Constitution's free-speech protections. The ruling threatens our democracy. Corporations, labor unions and other powerful interest groups can now send this message to lawmakers - vote with us and we can spend a million bucks to get you re-elected; vote against us and we will bury you.In turning our government over to the highest bidder, the conservative majority has assured the primacy of global corporations that are driven by only one motivation - profit.

In turning our government over to the highest bidder, the conservative majority has assured the primacy of global corporations that are driven by only one motivation - profit.The length to which the conservative justices went to provide money-rich corporations the means to overwhelm the political discussion was stunning.

The length to which the conservative justices went to provide money-rich corporations the means to overwhelm the political discussion was stunning. There was the case itself, brought by the producers of "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute piece of advocacy journalism masquerading as a documentary. The Federal Elections Commission ruled that the movie conflicted with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, usually called McCain-Feingold. The law banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before general elections.

There was the case itself, brought by the producers of "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute piece of advocacy journalism masquerading as a documentary. The Federal Elections Commission ruled that the movie conflicted with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, usually called McCain-Feingold. The law banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before general elections.The court could and should have issued a narrow ruling, clarifying that the pseudo-documentary was not the sort of speech the law was meant to address, which is clear from the legislative history. Instead, it chose to eviscerate laws limiting special-interest influence in elections.

The court could and should have issued a narrow ruling, clarifying that the pseudo-documentary was not the sort of speech the law was meant to address, which is clear from the legislative history. Instead, it chose to eviscerate laws limiting special-interest influence in elections.The conservative justices, who have railed against judicial activism in prior writings and decisions, were guilty of exactly that. Legislating from the bench, they replaced the will of Congress with their own opinions on how elections should be run.

The conservative justices, who have railed against judicial activism in prior writings and decisions, were guilty of exactly that. Legislating from the bench, they replaced the will of Congress with their own opinions on how elections should be run.Justices ignore precedent

Justices ignore precedentAnd in so doing the justices threw out decades of precedent allowing reasonable limitations on corporate and union support for candidates. The Citizens' decision overruled two recent precedents - Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision, and McConnell vs. Federal Elections Commission - that both upheld restrictions on corporate election spending and, in the case of McConnell, labor union spending. Those decisions rested on the groundwork of earlier cases.

And in so doing the justices threw out decades of precedent allowing reasonable limitations on corporate and union support for candidates. The Citizens' decision overruled two recent precedents - Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision, and McConnell vs. Federal Elections Commission - that both upheld restrictions on corporate election spending and, in the case of McConnell, labor union spending. Those decisions rested on the groundwork of earlier cases.The court's eagerness to needlessly toss aside past decisions gives lie to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony during his confirmation hearings that he would be loathe to overturn precedent.

The court's eagerness to needlessly toss aside past decisions gives lie to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony during his confirmation hearings that he would be loathe to overturn precedent."I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness," Chief Justice Roberts testified during the confirmation process. "It is not enough - and the court has emphasized this on several occasions - it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."

"I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness," Chief Justice Roberts testified during the confirmation process. "It is not enough - and the court has emphasized this on several occasions - it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."Yet the chief justice and the four justices joining him chose to not only jolt the legal system but the foundations of our democracy as well, simply because they felt prior decisions were wrongly decided.

Yet the chief justice and the four justices joining him chose to not only jolt the legal system but the foundations of our democracy as well, simply because they felt prior decisions were wrongly decided. It is distressing that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, sometimes a voice of moderation on the court, not only voted in favor of this decision but wrote it as well. While we respect Justice Kennedy as a strong free-speech defender, we agree with Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, co-author of the now overturned law, that the decision shows "extreme naïveté" about the influence of special-interest money in politics.

It is distressing that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, sometimes a voice of moderation on the court, not only voted in favor of this decision but wrote it as well. While we respect Justice Kennedy as a strong free-speech defender, we agree with Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, co-author of the now overturned law, that the decision shows "extreme naïveté" about the influence of special-interest money in politics.And like Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote a blistering dissent, we feel that the court's majority has committed a terrible error by treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. This was not the founders' intent.

And like Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote a blistering dissent, we feel that the court's majority has committed a terrible error by treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. This was not the founders' intent.Supporters of the so-called Tea Party Movement, who have led a vigorous case for returning government to "we the people," should think long and hard before applauding this decision as a constitutional victory. The corporate interests, with their global networks, are not "we the people."

Supporters of the so-called Tea Party Movement, who have led a vigorous case for returning government to "we the people," should think long and hard before applauding this decision as a constitutional victory. The corporate interests, with their global networks, are not "we the people."Congress can try to respond with legislation to circumvent the ruling, but the majority issued such a broad decision that it will be difficult to draft a law that will survive the awful precedent the court has set.

Congress can try to respond with legislation to circumvent the ruling, but the majority issued such a broad decision that it will be difficult to draft a law that will survive the awful precedent the court has set. Public financing is a clear need

Public financing is a clear needWe renew our support for public financing of campaigns. While such laws cannot, and should not, force candidates to use public financing, a candidate's decision to forgo it and turn instead to corporate and other special interests to bankroll a campaign will send a message to voters as to where that candidate's true priorities stand.

We renew our support for public financing of campaigns. While such laws cannot, and should not, force candidates to use public financing, a candidate's decision to forgo it and turn instead to corporate and other special interests to bankroll a campaign will send a message to voters as to where that candidate's true priorities stand.And we hold out hope for the grassroots nature of the Internet and the power it gives candidates to accumulate impressive financing from many small, citizen donations.

And we hold out hope for the grassroots nature of the Internet and the power it gives candidates to accumulate impressive financing from many small, citizen donations.But make no mistake - this radical decision threatens to take the nation back to a time when robber barons openly purchased political power. It is a sad day for citizen democracy.

But make no mistake - this radical decision threatens to take the nation back to a time when robber barons openly purchased political power. It is a sad day for citizen democracy.