Last week’s Supreme Court ruling to lift the ban on political campaign spending for corporations has come under fire from a number of persons including President Barack Obama, some Democrats in Congress and constitutional lawyers in South Florida.

President Obama said with the ruling, the Court has given “the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

Natalie Chevannes, a constitutional lawyer attending a legal conference in Miami, saw the Court’s ruling as “pathetic”. She said, “What this does is allow the big corporations, like those in the insurance industry to buy politicians who they believe will meet their objectives. This will not be beneficial to the American people.”

Another constitutional attorney, Gary Desouza said, “The Court’s decision could change election campaigns as we know them. Although the unions will have their say, it is the big corps that will influence who goes to Congress and the White House, and this cannot be good for democracy.”

Obama plans to work immediately with Congress on this issue. “We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.”

The case on which the Court ruled resulted from a documentary named Hillary: The Movie produced last year by Citizens United, which was an attack on presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The movie was meant for showing during the 2008 primaries, but a federal court blocked its airings. Ironically, the Court ruled against Citizens United, saying federal restrictions on broadcast ads are appropriate.

The core issue in the Court’s consideration in the case brought to it by Citizens United was whether corporations’ ability to put massive sums into election campaigns could be regulated, or whether corporations have free-speech rights to spend their cash to influence elections, just as individual donors do.

The split in the Court’s ruling was one between conservative and liberal justices. The five voting in favor were conservatives, Justices Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonio Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts. The dissenters, considered liberals, were newly appointed Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Stevens, in reading his harsh dissent, said, "The court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the nations founding.”

Before the Court’s ruling, the federal government regulated the influence that corporations could have in spending huge amounts that could manipulate the nation’s political outcomes.