The Supreme Court last week cleared the way for international corporations, as well as unions and interest groups, to play a more direct role in political campaigning.

The court’s decision, affirming a corporate right of free speech, hands a megaphone to those who already speak with a loud voice. By turning up the volume, it is likely to diminish the ability of individual citizens to participate in campaigns and influence elections. It could accelerate the trend of campaigners to skip the wards, precincts and neighborhoods where voters are, expecting to reach them at home with 30-second TV spots.

And by increasing the political power of large corporations and special interest groups, and it will make money even more important in politics than it is today.

The court’s 5-4 vote overturned the McCain-Feingold Act’s ban on corporate issue advertising before an election. It also rejected a rule that has prevented companies from paying for advertisements endorsing or trashing political candidates.

Some provisions of McCain-Feingold remain, including a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates. But opponents of such restrictions have  pledged to continue to bring this issue before the court as well.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the government should not have  the authority to censor political speech. Corporations and interest groups may have important messages to share, he wrote, and changing technology makes it inadvisable to establish rigid restrictions.

But Justice John Paul Stevens argued that limits on corporate speech have a long history, and asked pointedly whether the court is ready to take the next step of giving corporations the right to vote. He raised another good question: Should a foreign corporation should have the same First Amendment rights as an American citizen?

Stevens warned that corporate money could easily monopolize prime advertising hours on the eve of a hard-fought election. “When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate  electioneering, they  may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy,” he said.

Both President Obama and Sen. John McCain expressed dismay at the court’s decision. McCain predicted that campaign finance reform  will be a dead issue until the public gets fed up with special interest advocacy.

But even then, what can we do about it? Conservative activists on the court have tied the hands of the public, and given themselves the final word on this political controversy.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com or City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski at kristenm@journaltribune.com.