RALEIGH - The U.S. Supreme Court is something to behold.

Its marble columns and neoclassical architecture make quite an impression.

But even though it is just one block away from Congress, this temple of

justice only gets a fraction of the tourist traffic.

This is the most important courthouse in America. Despite its imposing

structure, the day-to-day work of the court goes on with little fanfare. The

court hears approximately 100 cases a year. While each one of them is

important, most of the rulings the court issues receive much less notoriety

than the proceedings next door at the U.S. Capitol. For every Brown v. Board

of Education or Roe v. Wade, there are countless other decisions the high

court makes that receive next to no attention.

Such is the situation this week. The court will hear the case of Citizens

United v. FEC. The dispute stems from the 2008 election where an

organization that received corporate funding sought to use video on demand

to air a message critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Since 2002, certain communications have been subject to regulation under a

law known as McCain-Feingold. Even before that bill’s passage, corporate

spending on elections has been subject to regulation. The Citizens United

case originally was brought to settle whether video on demand (a service

similar to pay per view) was subject to these campaign regulations. But in

an unusual move, the Supreme Court has asked the litigants to argue the

larger question of whether a decades-old prohibition on corporate funding of

elections should remain.

Unlike some of the more famous cases in Supreme Court history, oral

arguments this week aren’t going to bring out noisy throngs of protestors.

The marble steps outside the court will be mostly empty. But like nearly

every case the Supreme Court hears, the impact of this decision will have

ramifications far beyond the litigants.

Direct corporate funding of election campaigns is one of those things that

has average Americans scratching their heads. While most of us agree that

wealthy interests should not play an outsized role in who gets elected,

whether or not that funding comes directly or in less direct ways is a

distinction without a difference. Recently, the Supreme Court has looked

upon campaign financing regulations with increased concern. Trends suggest

that the court’s skepticism could result in a more lassiez-faire approach to

how elections are regulated.

Whatever the justices decide this week won’t have the immediate impact of

some previous Supreme Court decisions. The reverberations of this decision

will be felt slowly and over time. If restrictions on corporate spending

loosen, large campaign donations from corporate interests will slowly but

surely find their way into the pockets of our elected officials. Hopefully,

our public servants will be able to withstand the tremendous amount of

pressure -- mostly unspoken -- that comes with receiving an influx of cash.

As a higher percentage of campaign contributions come from corporations and

a smaller percentage comes from individuals, the concerns of corporate

America -- be it less regulation of Wall Street or what to do about

health-care reform -- will be addressed. In politics, money speaks.

Depending on how this case is decided, corporations might be on the verge of

getting a much larger microphone.

###

(Damon Circosta is the executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter

Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, dedicated

to helping citizens more fully participate in democracy.)