Campaign finance has been much discussed over the past few decades.  The issue at hand was whether or not corporations should be permitted to finance political campaigns and on January 21, the Supreme Court decided in a five to four majority that it is constitutional for corporations to finance campaigns.
Traditionally, Democrats and Republicans have maintained very different views on the matter.  Liberals, for the most part, have believed that corporate funding of political campaigns leaves room for corruption within the campaign.  Liberal reformers have focused on the importance of maintaining a level playing field, so to speak, and have looked for ways to limit the influence of wealthy corporations.  The aim is to reduce special interest financing, thus minimizing corruption.  Contrary to the Liberal opinion, Conservatives believe that limiting the amount of money anyone can spend, whether it be a corporation or an average citizen, it is censorship and a violation of the First Amendment, where freedom of the press would be challenged.  They argue that corporate funding is not necessarily the cause of corruption.
This more conservative decision has caused uproar among Democrats.  Many Democrats argue that Republicans will benefit most from this decision.  In response, the Democrats have begun to plan ways to counter the campaign finance ruling.  The proposed legislation would prevent foreign companies that are receiving government contracts or federal bailout funds from spending money on United States elections.  This legislation will be introduced later this month and will also require corporate officials who are financing campaigns to appear in advertisements of said campaign to show their approval.
It is argued there is no specific clause in the Constitution that states that corporations are to be treated differently than citizens.  Therefore, corporations should not be restricted from endorsing political campaigns in advertisements.  However, it is also clearly argued that this decision leaves room for large, wealthy, corporations to spend in order to sway the elections.  While it is true that corporations and unions are still expressly forbidden from donating directly to candidates, these corporations will have the ability to spend without limit to influence the elections.  The playing field is no longer even.