According to TPMMuckraker's Zachary Roth:

In the wake of last month's Citizens United ruling, a powerhouse Washington lobbying firm is informing its corporate clients on how they can use middlemen like the Chamber of Commerce to pour unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, while maintaining "sufficient cover" to avoid "public scrutiny" and negative media coverage.

Lawyers for the firm K&L Gates posted this Q&A primer on the firm's website. In one section, K&L Gates suggests that corporations might "form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates" because "this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny."

The Q&A primer also suggests that corporations "could further lower their profile" by using independent expenditures that could "take the form of advertisements in 'under-the radar' sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks."

It's safe to assume a lot of corporate officials are reading these kinds of legal advisories so they can push their agenda in the post-Citizens United world in ways that are virtually invisible to ordinary Americans.

We've written several posts about the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision on campaign finance -- and for good reason. As this Washington Post editorial reminds us, the ruling's impact will be huge:

The most dangerous aspect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is that it would let corporations spend money anonymously, by funneling donations through trade associations or other groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

This gap in reporting requirements existed before the Supreme Court ruling. But the decision made the loophole more problematic by allowing corporations to spend directly on political campaigns, and not only through so-called issue ads that stop short of endorsing or opposing particular candidates.

The Post noted that a proposal has been developed to partially address this concern by significantly raising disclosure requirements by corporate funders of such ads or campaigns.

Click here to read the concerns CREW has raised about this Supreme Court ruling.

CREW made its concerns known right after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the Citizens United case. Now the public is making it clear that it shares our concerns that this ruling may enable corporate special interests to play a dominant role in elections.

Today's Politico reports on a poll showing that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the court's ruling. In addition:

The poll suggests that the ruling has reinforced voters’ sense of disconnect with Washington ...

Asked if special interests have too much influence, 74 percent of respondents said yes. Asked if members of Congress are "controlled by" the groups and people who finance their political campaigns, a whopping 79 percent said yes.

Only 24 percent of the voters said ordinary citizens can still influence politicians, and just 18 percent agreed with the notion that lawmakers listen to voters more than to their financial backers.

And the public's anger at the Citizens United ruling is bipartisan. Republicans disapprove of the decision by a margin of 51-to-37 percent. Democrats oppose the ruling by an even greater margin.

No matter where they live or what party they claim to belong to, it's clear that a whole lot of Americans share the sentiments that CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan expressed right after the ruling:

"Money buys elections and the biggest corporations with the most money will own our politicians. We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America."

In today's Washington Post, former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) explains why he's so disappointing at having heard several Republican leaders cheer the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case:

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate 30 years ago, I was a proud member of a Republican Party known for championing moderation in Congress, restraint in the courts and good-government reform.

In fact, the Republican tradition of campaign finance reform in which I stand dates to the trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt.

Rudman calls the court's ruling "a rash and immoderate ruling" that "is beyond my comprehension." And the ex-senator says he's perplexed as to why such a decision would "win praise from leaders of my party."

Rudman's eloquent words remind us that campaign finance should not be a partisan issue. In the long run, the Citizens United is likely to change the electoral and political process in America in ways that will anger and dismay both rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans.

Click here to read CREW's statement on the court's disturbing decision.

Well, not exactly. A public relations firm in Maryland is dramatizing its concern over the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance by "campaigning" for Congress.

Click here to get the details from CREW's Corporate Crackdown blog.

Last night, when President Obama voiced deep concern about the Supreme Court's ruling in the campaign-finance case of Citizens United, TV cameras caught Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words: "not true."

Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, writes that aside from the issue of decorum, "Justice Alito faces a bigger problem: Obama's comment is true." He contends that the views of the majority in Citizens United "constitute dangerous and revolutionary shifts in long-settled law."

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, released this statement on the Supreme Court decision.

In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama voiced his concern -- which CREW shares -- about the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United campaign-finance case:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

This was the second time that President Obama took aim at this disastrous decision. The president issued this statement on the day of last Thursday's ruling.

Going into the SOTU speech, this court ruling was not on the radar screen of most Americans. Hopefully, some of those who heard the president's remarks last night surfed the web to learn more about the Citizens United decision.

Making ordinary Americans aware of this disturbing decision is a key first step. Click here to read the statement from CREW's Melanie Sloan about the court ruling.

Speaking yesterday at a Georgetown University Law Center conference, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor offered a terse criticism of last week's high court ruling in the Citizens United case. The New York Times reports:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not sound happy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court’s big campaign finance decision last week. It repudiated a major part of a ruling Justice O’Connor helped write before her retirement from the court in 2006, and it complicated her recent efforts to do away with judicial elections.

"Gosh," she said, "I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen."

... "If you want my legal opinion" about Citizens United, Justice O’Connor said, "you can go read" McConnell.

Of course, the 2003 McConnell decision was essentially overruled by the Citizens United ruling so it speaks volumes for Justice O'Connor to say she sticks by the views expressed in McConnell.

Was yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court just a dream? Unfortunately, no. The headline on this New York Times editorial reminds us of the gravity of Thursday's decision:

THE COURT's BLOW TO DEMOCRACY

In its editorial, the Times writes:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century.

Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

Politico ran a front-page story, featuring this assessment by Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director:

"We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America."

One day later, this ruling is no less disturbing.

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 60 years of precedent prohibiting corporations and unions from spending treasury funds to run ads endorsing or opposing candidates for federal office.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated:

"This is a disaster for regulation of campaign spending. It means ads advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates will no longer be put out just by candidates and parties, but will now also come from corporations and unions."

CREW will have additional comment on the decision later today. Click here to read the court's decision in the Citizens United case.