It seems as if more are now contemplating the possible repercussions of last week's "little-noticed order" from the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. A New York Times editorial states; "we fear the Supreme Court has set the stage for dismantling the longstanding ban on corporate spending in elections for president and Congress. If those restrictions are overturned, it would be a disaster for democracy." The Court ordered additional briefing on two cases, Austin v. Michigan and the parts of McConnell v. FEC that upheld electioneering communications rules. In Austin, the Supreme Court upheld a state statute prohibiting corporate independent expenditures by a 6-3 vote.

Eliza Carney's recent column in the National Journal ($$) covers the case and suggests that the rehearing is evidence that the Court is interested in overturning Austin.

Oddest of all, however, is that the Supreme Court should set out to roll back campaign restrictions on corporations at a time when their outsized political role is under attack. The financial sector invested more than $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade, according to a March report by the nonpartisan group Wall Street Watch, a project of the Consumer Education Foundation and a Ralph Nader group called Essential Information.

Reportedly, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will likely face questions on campaign finance during her confirmation hearings. The National Law Journal ($$) says, "expect questions from senators, but don't expect answers from Sotomayor, who will cite the need to remain neutral."

Politico is not shy about making any predictions. "Decades of lawmaking and court decisions restricting the flow of cash into U.S. elections are on the verge of coming undone, placing President Barack Obama in the unexpected position of presiding over the possible demise of the modern campaign finance regime."

Not everyone is viewing the rehearing with such depredation. For example, former FEC Chairman Brad Smith wrote an opinion piece in the Examiner noting that overruling Austin, "would merely guarantee that corporations and unions could speak directly to voters about candidates and issues. The views of employees, labor union members, or members of groups like state chambers of commerce are vital to a robust debate on issues and candidates. Adding their voices to the mix cannot corrupt our democracy. It would enrich it."