$44,214,960.

That is the amount of money ATT has contributed to political campaigns over the past 10 years. ATT is the number one “heavy hitter” on OpenSecrets.org’s list of top 10 corporate campaign donors. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/). ATT splits its donations almost equally between Democrats and Republicans.

Rounding out the top five are: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($41,941,811 – almost all of it to Democrats); National Association of Realtors ($35,595,518 – evenly split between Democrats and Republicans); Goldman Sachs ($31,437,825 – primarily to Democrats); and the American Association for Justice (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association – $31,424,029 – overwhelmingly to Democrats).

So even without the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v The Federal Elections Commission, which struck down limits on independent campaign contributions by corporations, there was, and is, a lot of money flowing into candidates all across the country. As the dollar amounts above show, it is not as if the 2002 campaign finance reform laws stymied contributions. Contributions to campaigns by OpenSecrets.org top five “heavy hitters,” actually went up the last two Presidential election cycles.

 Writing for the majority in his decision on Citizens United, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited “the substantial, nationwide chilling effect caused” by a ban on corporate contributions. The Supreme Court did uphold disclosure requirements and the ban on soft money. They also held that corporations and candidates could not coordinate their efforts.

The reaction to Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens has been swift and pointed. President Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech. Sen. Chuck Schumer is planning Senate hearings to help develop laws to mitigate some of the impact of the ruling.

But Citizens doesn’t mean that Corporations will suddenly open their wallets and make contributions. They are already doing so. Whether through direct funding like that listed above, or through PACS and “Research” institutes or “Concerned Citizens” groups, corporations are pumping a lot of money for and against candidates and trying to influence legislation in Congress. The ads that ran both for both sides on Obama’s health care plan are excellent examples of this.

But the justices also left themselves a large opening to overturn virtually any law regulating campaign finance. In the past the Supreme Court ruled that corruption due to “undue access” or “influence” justified campaign finance reform laws. In Citizens the Supreme Court reversed that stance and ruled: “The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” In following that rule, the only contributions that could be constitutionally outlawed would be any contribution with a direct “quid pro quo.”

The Supremes could use this rule to overturn limits on PACs expenditures. In SpeechNow.org v The Federal Election Commission, currently before a DC Circuit Court, SpeechNow.org is arguing that a PAC should be able run campaign ads without adhering to the dollar limits set by the FEC. They argue that it is neither making any expenditures in favor of any one candidate, nor is it coordinating its expenditures with a campaign. Therefore they should be treated just like corporations are treated in Citizens. A ruling in SpeechNow’s favor would open the floodgates of PAC money into an election.

The political party that stands to gain the most is the Republicans. As you can see, Democrats are heavy beneficiaries of the top five corporate donors over the past ten years. Republicans are already cash strapped this election cycle and the Democrats are fairly flush. The Republicans will be able to solicit more money from corporations, and if SpeechNow.org wins its case, Republicans can also tap into their vast network of PACS and interests groups.

In a strange way this ruling returns the country to an ideal held dear by our country’s founders. The founders felt that only men with land and money should be able to vote. Their reasoning was that these men would have some stake in the country and would always vote in a rational way to protect their interests. The founders were afraid that those without land or money could easily be manipulated into a mob – and they were afraid of the mob. That is why the United States was founded as a Republic to be lead by wealthy, educated members of a ruling class, and not as a Democracy where the majority – the mob – rules.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens ensures only those with vast amounts of money will be able to govern. Those people would make decisions in their own best interest – just as the founders intended.