Did the Court go too far?

LINK IN TITLE

In the recent case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that, because of the first amendment, corporations and individuals hold the same rights to free political speech and can use this right to financially support political campaigns without being limited. While corporations have been limited in their campaign finance spending for a long time, this decision makes it easy to run a campaign solely (or at least mostly) on unlimited support from big business. It also leaves the door open for campaigns to be influenced much more greatly by foreign parties, an objection Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address.

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, "Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending." Eight in ten respondents said that they oppose the Court's ruling, and there was very little difference in the results between different parties, for once showing bipartisan unity. " 'If there's one thing that Americans from the left, right and center can all agree on, it's that they don't want more special interests in our politics,' " said Senator Charles Schumer. Legislation is currently being drafted to limit the possibilities opened up by the Court's ruling, but some legislators still support the Court's decision.

Many people immediately questioned the repercussions of this decision, and the results of this poll are quite indicative of that. If businesses can support candidates without limitation, does that mean that the candidate who gets the support from the biggest and most financially capable businesses will win? Was the Court even justified in their ruling (just because we don't like it doesn't always mean it isn't constitutional), or did they go too far?