The Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 21 that large corporations are free to launch advertisements for federal campaigns. U.S. Senate candidates from Illinois now have to decide who is the more important resource for publicizing campaigns: corporations or private individual donors.

Eric Brickman, a member of College Democrats and senior in LAS, said there will most likely be an increase in political messages and advertisements due to the ruling. However, he said Americans may be too busy already to notice the effect it has on elections.

Jacob Hollars, the College Republicans vice president for internal affairs and junior in LAS, said that the ruling is not likely to have an effect on his voting choice because he uses voting records to make election decisions.

“Others though who do not take or have the time to do so may be affected by it,” he said. “But one should never take a campaign ad, whether it be put out by corporation or a candidate himself, at face value.”

In a statement posted on his campaign Web site, Democratic hopeful Alexi Giannoulias expressed disappointment with the ruling.

“The very corporate special interests that got us into this economic mess should be given less power to influence elections, not more,” he said.

Giannoulias said he has no intention of accepting funds from corporate political action committees, or PACs, or federal lobbyists.

“I am proud to be the first U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois history to refuse money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists because I believe that to get our economy back on track and create the next generation of good-paying jobs, we have to break the grip of corporate interests in Washington,” Giannoulias said in the statement.

Eric Elk, spokesman for Republican candidate Mark Kirk, refuted Giannoulias’ claim that he is refusing to accept money from PACs.

“According to state and federal records, Alexi Giannoulias took $504,700 from corporate, union and other Political Action Committees as state treasurer and already accepted another $63,500 from special interest, business and union PACs in his bid for Senate,” he said in an e-mail.

“In the wake of Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris, Illinois voters deserve better.”

Jacob Meister, a former Democratic candidate for the seat who announced his withdrawal from the race on Sunday, disapproved of the ruling in a statement on his Web site.

“The American people have been robbed today and will have to wait until Election Day to realize what they have lost,” Meister said.

“A true democratic process is not one ruled by corporate fiat. This decision is cause again to rekindle the fire beneath the public financing of campaigns and allow the American electorate to control its own destiny and stop its democracy from being auctioned off to the highest bidder.”

John Arrington, a Republican candidate for the Illinois senate seat, said the ruling will not make an impact on his campaign, but could have a great impact on future elections.

“I do feel there need to be some guidelines involved here. I can see radical corporations really exploiting this ruling, which is not in and of itself bad at all,” Arrington said.

“It could have an advantage for those who are well-connected, incumbents, which would make it difficult for the ‘little guy’ to run for office. There will be some things that need to be addressed.”

Kent Redfield, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Springfield who specializes in Illinois politics and campaign finance, said that the ruling will increase the influence that corporations have over public policy.

“If I know that my federal election is going to benefit from big independent spending by my party and by big corporations or big unions, then I will not be as concerned about raising money from individuals, and my tendency will be not to vote against my big money supporters,” Redfield said, also an appointee within the University’s Institute of Government and Public Affairs.

“The biggest danger is that concentrated wealth in the hands of big corporations and unions will distort the political process by dominating debate and creating public opinion,” Redfield said.

He said this will also cause elected officials to become more dependent on “big money” to fund campaigns.

“You will certainly get an increase in the type of messages— many from not-for-profit issue groups— that are presented to voters,” Redfield said. “The question is whether the messages from big money will drown everything else out, including the candidates.”