There is little doubt that yesterday's Supreme Court decision to lift restrictions on corporate campaign activity will add new players to the political arena, but it remains to be seen if the ruling will completely reshape federal elections.

Yesterday, the answer to that question depended largely on who was speaking.

Reaction to the court's ruling was distinctly partisan -- Democrats and others on the left saw it as a fierce blow to the integrity of elections and the legislative process, while Republicans and their allies touted it as a major win for free speech and one that would lead to voters receiving better information about major political issues.

Specifically, the court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will allow corporations and labor unions to use their general funds to pay for campaign advertising and to do it right up to Election Day.

President Obama and a number of other Democrats quickly moved to paint the decision as one that will benefit corporate increase -- raising the specter that "big oil" will come to play a major role in the election process.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

Reaction was just as sharp from Capitol Hill.

"The Supreme Court has just pre-determined the winners of next November's election -- it won't be Republicans, it won't be Democrats, it will be corporate America," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had previously headed up the Democrats' Senate campaign efforts. "It's poisonous to our democracy. This will dramatically change the structure, the warp and woof of campaigns for the worst."

Environmental groups, who would be freed from some of the restrictions under the ruling, nevertheless raised a similar argument, saying that it would only further increase the influence of oil companies and other corporate interests.

"Today's Supreme Court ruling letting corporations like Exxon, Massey and Goldman Sachs spend billions to influence elections is a disaster for democracy," said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. "Corporate special interests had far too much influence in Washington prior to this ruling."

Republicans leaders argued the exact opposite, saying it would only increase participation in the political process.

"For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The ruling appears to help tilt the political playing field in favor of Republicans, in part because they are generally more closely aligned with many major business interests and because Democratic leaders have pursued policies -- among them cap and trade -- that is seen as detrimental to parts of the business community. At the very least, it could lessen the advantage that President Obama and Democratic campaign committees have had over their Republican counterparts.

But experts on the left also laid out a number of far more dramatic "nightmare" scenarios: that candidates would rise to office simply because they had the backing of one large corporation willing to fund a political campaign; that lawmakers would back off opposing even low-profile business actions, such as mining permits, for fear of seeing a barrage of advertising; that corporations could send a message by pouring millions into defeating one candidate and as a result scare off others from backing legislation detrimental to their interests; and that with their resources they would simply overwhelm every other voice in the political arena.

"Exxon Mobil had virtually $45 billion in profits last year, If they spent 2 percent of that on electioneering that would be more than both presidential campaigns combined," said Drew Courtney of the advocacy group People for the American Way.

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) penned a Huffington Post op-ed yesterday under the title "the Senator From Exxon-Mobil."

"What does this ruling mean? Consider the influence a single corporation like Exxon Mobil could wield in the upcoming energy and climate debate if it is able to not only lobby on Capitol Hill but spend unlimited sums on the election or defeat of candidates," Kerrey wrote. "With $85 billion in profits during the 2008 election, Exxon Mobil would have been able to fully fund over 65,000 winning campaigns for U.S. House or outspend every candidate by a factor of 90 to 1. That's a scary proposition when you consider that the health of our planet is at stake."

Officials in the business community downplayed those kinds of scenarios, saying that while business interests would surely get involved in campaign advertising, it would not necessarily lead to the deluge that some predict.

"I don't think its a floodgate of corporate dollars going to advocacy campaigns, but there are things that the business community will step up and talk about," said Greg Casey, president of the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC). "This will be a very responsible response."

For one thing, experts said, in an era where corporate activity is closely watched by shareholders and where profits are low to begin with, many businesses simply will not choose to use their resources in such a manner.

"In this economy, it's not like corporations have piles of cash that they've been waiting to dump into the political process," said Josh Zive, a campaign finance expert with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

They also pointed out that businesses have to consider their own public image and may be weary of taking a highly partisan stance in a highly charged campaign environment for fear of alienating some of their customers. For example, polling shows that oil companies are particularly unpopular with the American public, and it remains to be seen how an ad from Exxon Mobil would be received.

"Given the climate with the shareholders and the public at-large and the scrutiny that every corporation gets when they jump into the political process, I expect companies to be careful about getting involved," Zive said.

Under campaign finance law, businesses would still have to disclose their campaign activity.

But those arguments did little to assuage critics of the ruling, saying that there were multiple ways that corporations could funnel money in a way that disguised their source -- giving it to entities such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or to other businesses. "If you start laundering money one corporation through another, it will be difficult to pick up where it's coming from," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.

The Chamber of Commerce -- perhaps the single most powerful political entity in the business community and a group that promised to be involved in the 2010 election -- had filed a brief in the Citizens United vs. FEC case in support of the plaintiffs.

The ruling goes into effect immediately, meaning that corporations can start running ads for upcoming primaries and the 2010 general election.

Democratic response

Obama and top Democrats in Congress said that they would immediately look for avenues to undo the Supreme Court decision.

Schumer, chairman of the usually quiet Senate Rules Committee, said he will hold hearings on the matter in the next couple of weeks and will pursue legislation, though it remains to be seen exactly what lawmakers could do to limit the ruling.

Officials from advocacy groups, meanwhile, said they will push for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision.

The Court did keep in place restrictions on direct corporate contributions to candidates, though critics argued that those limits are now meaningless since businesses can just run their own political campaigns.