Ramtin Arablui and Randa Abdelfattah

Later that year, 2009, the case came back to the Supreme Court.

By this time, Barack Obama had become president after massively outspending John McCain with unprecedented help from private donors.

So when Citizens United goes back to the Supreme Court the second time for re-argument, it's a pretty momentous oral argument.

It's Elena Kagan's first argument as Solicitor General.

Everyone knows that basically the future of the campaign finance system is on the line.

And we're not surprised when Citizens United wins the case, ultimately, because at the argument, Kagan goes in and essentially is trying to limit the loss.

What case of ours?

What case of ours?

If we lose this case, we do have a preference on how we lose this case.

We don't want to lose this case so badly that we lose all campaign finance regulation.

So it's no surprise when the government loses.

But it is pretty dramatic.

The 5-4 majority, led by Justice Kennedy, said that political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment.

And the identity of the speaker does not remove that protection.

Whether it's an individual or a group of individuals, maybe who work for a corporation, if they want to spend their money on getting their message out, they can't.

So they rejected the idea that corporate wealth creates a special corruption risk that justifies a ban.

These restrictions on corporate spending have been around since 1907.

The Tillman Act of 1907, the United States' first law to ban corporate spending in elections.

And now we've blown a huge hole in campaign finance law.

And the worry along these lines is that the floodgates will open to corporate money.