The U.S. Supreme Court, in its recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, gutted a key provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. In the process, the court destroyed one of the last bulwarks against unbridled big-money influence over national politics, taking the country a giant step back into the late 19th century’s Gilded Age of political corruption.

The high court ruling overturned the finance reform law’s ban against corporations and unions using their general treasury funds to pay for an “electioneering communication” — defined as broadcast, cable or satellite program, transmitted within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, that refers to a candidate.

This provision, co-sponsored in 2002 by Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, was designed to prevent corporate underwriting of advertising campaigns that implicitly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate.

Given the importance of broadcast advertising in the final month of a congressional or presidential campaign and the fact that only those with sacks of money can afford such ads, the potential for undue influence is obvious.

Ads don’t have to be expressly for or against a candidate to be effective. The same message can be conveyed, as in Citizens United, by a highly negative film “documentary” about a candidate (in this case Hillary Clinton). Just the threat of employing such a tactic during an upcoming election may be enough to bring many incumbents to heel during their term in office.

Even under McCain-Feingold, corporations were still free to create and help pay the administrative expenses of a political action committee (PAC) if they wished to expressly back particular candidates. However, PAC campaign funds had to come from individual donors, and donations were limited as to amount and subject to strict accounting and disclosure requirements.

Combine the new ability of corporations to engage in subtle broadcast electioneering with the existing political clout of PACS and Washington lobbyists (who earned about $3.5 billion during the past year), and you have a potent witch’s brew.

Unfortunately the corrupting influence of money on elections and governmental decision-making is a long and disreputable tradition in American politics, one which McCain-Feingold vainly attempted to stem.

In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson initiated political patronage, later known as the “spoils system,” by appointing masses of political supporters to public jobs. It eventually came to be expected that such appointees would kick back part of their earnings to the coffers of the party which secured them employment.

The Second Bank of the United States, which Jackson was determined to dismantle, spent large sums of corporate money in a futile attempt to stop his re-election in 1832, arguably the first corporate foray into campaign financing.

Starting in the 1850s, Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln, purchased ownership interests in newspapers which, in turn, editorialized in favor of their candidacies for office.

After the Civil War, politicians freely accepted bribes from wealthy individuals and companies. Railroads notoriously gave free passes and other gratuities to legislators. In 1872, an investigation revealed that more than 30 congressmen from both parties, including a future presidential candidate, had received heavily discounted shares of Credit Mobilier stock, an insider construction company which built the Union Pacific Railroad at grossly inflated prices.

One 19th century railroad tycoon frankly said, “If you have to pay money to have the right thing done, it is only just and fair to do it.” Steel magnate Henry Clay Frick, irked at antitrust suits President Theodore Roosevelt’s Justice Department had launched after he and other industrialists backed T.R.’s 1904 election campaign, famously complained, “We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn’t stay bought.”

The Pendleton Act of 1883 began the process of civil service reform, which reduced the number of politically appointed federal employees. However, other forms of political corruption, notably bribes and secret donations to elected officials, persisted, surfacing in periodic scandals. A notable example was Richard Nixon’s use of suitcases of cash “campaign contributions” during his 1972 campaign to fund “black bag” operations, including Watergate.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United is based on the notion that corporations are entitled to the same rights of political free speech as individuals under the First Amendment. That comparison is disingenuous.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the First Amendment, was concerned about the right of citizens to speak their mind without fear of government censorship or retaliation. It likely never occurred to him that wealthy business concerns should be entitled to the same protection as a yeoman farmer.

Though run and operated by people, corporations are not human beings. They are legal fictions, created by government fiat. They can’t vote, but they can exist in perpetuity, amassing wealth over generations without paying death taxes, and are allowed to raise large sums from investors under federal securities laws.

Corporations theoretically represent the interests of even their smallest shareholders, who have little to say about how that money is used. At least until Citizens United, stockholders could be reasonably sure their investment was spent for business purposes, not for political goals they might not espouse.

Unlike individuals, whose political decisions tend to be the product of complex motives, business corporations have one overarching goal, to maximize profit. Anyone in the legislative or executive branch of government who threatens to frustrate that goal is someone to be recruited, intimidated or defeated at the polls.

Finally, even if a corporation is entitled to the same status as an individual, the Supreme Court has long been willing to balance First Amendment rights against other important governmental interests. For instance, political demonstrators have a constitutional right to rally, picket and march in streets and other public places, but government retains authority to determine the time, manner and place of such activities in order to minimize or avoid traffic jams, property damage and violence. Surely government has a greater interest in protecting the integrity and honesty of elections and the political process than in regulating traffic flow.

Yet the Supreme Court seems to think corporations need even broader rights of political expression under the First Amendment. No doubt they’ll use those rights to buy politicians and ensure they “stay bought.”

Elliott L. Epstein, a local attorney, is founder and board president of Museum L-A and an adjunct history instructor at Central Maine Community College. He can be reached at [email protected]