Yesterday's Supreme Court decision to lift the ban on political spending by corporations and unions may have implications that end up being "even greater on a state or local level than it would be in a federal race," according to the Baltimore Sun's Second Opinion blog. More: "Imagine a developer going to a county executive to ask for his or her support on a project, a decision that could mean millions in profits or losses. If the executive says yes, the developer can flood the airwaves with commercials of support in the next election. If no, the money can go to propping up an opponent." California already has similar spending rules to the ones ultimately ushered in by yesterday's decision, but local cities like Los Angeles have "imposed limits similar to the federal restrictions the court rejected. The justices' decision appears to have overturned the local laws as well, to the dismay of some officials," according to the Los Angeles Times. "The fear is that this decision will open a floodgate to corporate spending . . . in a way that undermines the role of individuals in our city's campaigns," said LeeAnn Pelham, executive director of the L.A. City Ethics Commission." Meanwhile, the Huffington Post paints this frightening scenario of non-stop TV advertisements for city council candidates and Wal-Mart pushing Sarah Palin.
· With new campaign finance ruling, is all permitted? [Second Opinion]
· Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Finance Ruling [NY Times]