(Thumbnail image: toonpool.com)

“If you thought there was money in politics before, wait until November. In a blockbuster 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court says corporations, businesses can buy ads that directly support or attack candidates running for office.”

Not only can corporations buy ads supporting or attacking candidates—they can now do it without any spending limits whatsoever. It’s a battle that’s raged for more than a hundred years. Now elections could more interesting—and a lot more pricey.

We’ve got perspectives on what the ruling could mean, from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, Change Congress, and The Washington Post.

So why’s this a big deal to begin with? It takes years of precedent and pretty much throws it out the window. On FOX News, Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees with the Supreme Court decision.

“The Supreme Court said wait a minute…Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. What part of this don’t they understand? Gone. They can now spend all the money they want starting this year in 2010 right up to the moment of election.”

But most Democrats aren’t too happy with the ruling, saying big businesses like oil companies will contribute big money, mostly to Republicans. NBC’s Pete Williams says Dems already have a plan of attack.

“Opponents of the decision, including President Obama say it’s all about a flood of corporate money into campaigns. In fact David, President Obama has instructed his aides to start working with members of Congress to write new laws to try to blunt the force of today’s Supreme Court ruling.”

Larry Lessig of the Change Congress movement took to the Web, voicing his concern that the latest decision will erode public trust in elected officials even more.

“I don’t think the point is here is corporations should be silenced. I think the point is we need a political system where people can trust the decision Congress makes are decisions based on the merits of what makes sense or what the people in their district want and not what the funders demand.”

The Washington Post writes the Court’s determination to take up this case in particular, shows it’s dead set on changing longstanding election laws.

“It is hard to remember an instance where the justices reached so far to make major constitutional law. It will have immediate political consequences. Business managers now will be able to spend at will Bloomberg-level sums in congressional races across the country. In partisan and political impact, this rivals Bush v. Gore.”

Right now, corporations still can’t give money directly to candidates. But on CNN, legal expert Jeffrey Toobin says with the way the Supreme Court is trending, it might not be too long before that changes too.

“Don’t kid yourself. That’s the next step in the logic here. That if individuals can’t be barred from giving to campaigns, why can you bar a corporation from giving to campaigns? That would put corporations and labor unions and other organizations even more directly in the political process.”

So do you think corporations and unions should be able to spend as much as they want on political ads? Is this ruling the start of a slippery slope?

Writer: Chance Seales

Producer: Nathan Giannini