In the run-up to the 2008 election, Citizens United, a conservative organization that has since aligned itself with the tea party, produced an attack film with the on-the-nose title Hillary: The Movie. When a D.C. court ruled that advertising and widely screening Hillary would be a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, Citizens United took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ultimately determined that corporate expenditures on “electioneering” constitute a form of protected free speech, and that neither state nor federal law can bar corporations or non-profits from using general treasury funds to support or oppose a candidate.  At the time, former U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who lost his re-election bid in 2010 to tea partier Daniel Webster, called Citizens United “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

The Center for Responsive Politics now finds that, following the Citizens United decision, midterm spending on campaign ads and electioneering efforts by outside interest groups (including corporations, nonprofit interest groups and unions) has quadrupled. Moreover, 72 percent of spending for ads around the 2010 election came from groups that were legally barred from such spending before the Court made its decision. Although unions and liberal nonprofits have taken advantage of the ruling, outside spending from conservative groups is where the true growth has occurred. In 2010, election spending from conservative groups without direct party connections was up nearly 10 times what it was during the last midterm election cycle. At $190.5 million, it was also nearly double the $98.6 million that non-party-affiliated liberal groups spent on the 2010 election.

A slideshow of some of the Center’s findings is below:

The deluge of corporate money that rushed into the election process once the Supreme Court opened the floodgates has now prompted at least one group to challenge the ruling directly. Free Speech for People is a non-partisan organization dedicated to the idea that constitutional free speech protections intended for individuals don’t extend to corporate spending, nor should they.  The group points out [PDF] that, according to polling done by Hart Research, fewer than 14 percent of Americans agree with the Court’s decision, and that 82 percent of Americans believe Congress should step in to place limits on corporate campaign spending.

Now, Free Speech for People is standing by Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock as he works to appeal state Judge Jeffrey Sherlock’s October ruling that Citizens United made Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act unconstitutional. The Corrupt Practices Act was passed nearly 100 years ago, Free Speech for People co-founder and General Counsel Jeffrey Clements tells The American Independent, because of the undue influence the copper industry had on Montana politics at the turn of the century.  Now, a century on, corporate influence has been restored to its place in the political process; Clements and Free Speech for People co-founder John Bonifaz hope to change that.

To that end, Free Speech for People has filed an Amicus Curiae brief [PDF] (a document that an outside party can submit to provide information to a court) with the Montana Supreme Court, which will be hearing Attorney General Bullock’s appeal of Sherlock’s decision.

Bullock and Free Speech for People, however, now face an uphill battle. Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) is an anti-environmental regulation organization that, along with two local businesses, brought the suit that Bullock is now appealing. If WTP and its partners win in the Montana Supreme Court, the state of Montana can take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court; if the state wins, WTP can do the same.

Either way, the case has a very real possibility of ending up under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. But with very recent precedent weighing in favor of corporate expenditures and no significant ideological shifts on the Court since the decision, the future of the Montana case seems all but sealed.

Tara Malloy, associate legal counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit dedicated to campaign reform, says that Montana’s best option now is to gather as much evidence as it can to show that unchecked corporate spending is a path to quid pro quos and bribery. “It would be very interesting if Montana could come with a good record—or terrible record, if you will—of corruption,” she says. “But even then, the Supreme Court does not have to accept that.”

Free Speech for People’s Clements has the same take. He says that the onus will now be on Montana to show that the state’s political process is inherently compromised without the Corrupt Practices Act. The fact that all the evidence goes back 100 years, though, might weaken the case. “Will this lead to a reversal of Citizens United?” he says. “Probably not. But it’s important that states do stand up against Citizens United like this, because otherwise, we don’t have democracy anymore.”

Clements stresses that he’s not defying the Supreme Court or arguing that it has created an illegal or unconstitutional political atmosphere. But he hopes that Montana’s case could at least prompt other states to consider taking on the Citizens United decision and alert the Supreme Court to how it has played out across the country. “Corporations aren’t people,” he says. “Multinational corporate money has no place in our elections.”

But will a vote on a new, leaner bill make it onto the Senate’s packed lame-duck schedule? Democrats following the issue assure me that they’re fighting to include it in the mix, but they’re up against a lot of competing demands that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) must juggle, from the Start Treaty to an omnibus appropriations bill to food safety to the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. They also note that a stripped-down version of the bill couldn’t be called up at a moment’s notice — like Reid was able to do the last time he called a vote on DISCLOSE — but would instead have to be introduced the old fashioned way and would probably eat up between two and three days of precious Senate floor time as a result.

The biggest issue weighing on the Democrats’ decision, by far, is whether a disclosure-only bill would actually convince any GOP senators to change their mind on the issue. Both Democrats and campaign finance advocates make it clear that they’ve been reaching out the offices of Republicans like Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) since the spring, asking for their views on what they’d like to see (or not see) in the bill. In recent months, however, that line of communication has basically gone dead.

So would a disclosure-only bill represent the right show of good faith to win back their support? Or would it simply lead to a symbolic floor vote in which Democrats force Republicans to take a stand on the issue of disclosure? I’m waiting to hear back from Snowe and Collins’ offices to get their version of events and whether they think there’s any hope of reviving the conversation, and I’ll write about it if and when I hear back.

The poll, conducted by Zogby International and commissioned by the business-led Committee for Economic Development (CED), surveyed 301 business leaders and presents a somewhat counter-intuitive look at their opinions of the current state of nondisclosure in the political campaign finance system. Highlights pointed out by the Committee for Economic Development include:

Seventy-seven percent believe that corporations should disclose all of their direct and indirect political expenditures, including money provided to third party organizations to be spent on campaign ads. The poll also found that ninety-three percent of business leaders believe that corporate boards should be informed of the beneficiaries and purposes of the company’s direct and indirect political spending. Two-thirds polled agreed with the statement: “the lack of transparency and oversight in corporate political activity encourages behavior that puts corporations at legal risk and endangers corporate reputations.”

“This poll underscores what business people across America already know: the political system is broken and large amounts of money are flooding the system and corrupting the democratic process,” said Ed Kangas, a CED Trustee and the former Chairman and CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, in a statement. “These huge undisclosed contributions that pay for campaign ads are distorting the political process and are a major reason why Congress has become so dysfunctional.”

I hadn’t heard of CED before reading about the results of this survey. The group’s Board of Trustees contains a lot of heavy hitters, however, including representatives from Yahoo!, Delta Airlines, the Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey & Company, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and it describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan business led public policy organization.” Whether it has the ability to exert any political weight in a potentially renewed fight in Congress for disclosure is unclear at this point.

It makes a measure of sense, however, why some companies might be upset with the new system: With more opportunities to give, companies that would rather use their treasuries for other purposes might feel increased pressure to keep up with rival businesses or industries in playing the contributions game. This in turn creates an arms race in which more and more business and labor interests are dragged into the political fight when they could be spending their money more productively. With greater restrictions, at least they could be assured of an even playing field.

When the business lobby was arguing the very idea that donor disclosure isn’t necessary, it made the point that balance already exists: those who fail to name donors face an intrinsic if not justified punishment in the form of public skepticism.

In the amicus brief it filed in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — which allows corporate expenditures in political campaigns — the Chamber appears to have predicted the backlash it is now facing:

“Moreover, it is common experience that, where the supporters of exempt speech are not disclosed, opponents can and do exploit the silence as a reason for discounting the speech. The fact that many speakers decline to identify their donors, even though doing so weakens the credibility of their speech, again confirms that required donor disclosure is burdensome and likely to suppress speech.”

From the U.S. Chamber’s mouth to the Supreme Court’s ears: Undisclosed speech risks a greater chance of being viewed by the public as lacking credibility.

“I’ve never seen a candidate who just stole all their campaign money and used it for personal use,” she told CBS News. “What it seems like here is that Christine O’Donnell had no other way to support herself, so she thought, ‘Okay, I’ll run for U.S. Senate.’”

Sloan and her group are calling on the Delaware attorney’s office to open a formal, criminal investigation into the matter. O’Donnell, thus far, has refused to return calls for comment on the matter and seemed to dismiss such allegations as mere smear tactics during her speech at the Voter Values Summit in Washington this Friday:

“Will they attack us? Yes. Will they smear our background and distort our record? Undoubtedly. Will they lie about us, harass our families, name call and try to intimidate us? They will. There’s nothing safe about it. But is it worth it?….Are those unalienable rights worth a little alienation from the beltway popular crowd. Yes! I say yes, yes, a thousand times yes,” she said.

In a McCain campaign conference call today, Davis said he was “jazzed up” and assured reporters that “we are witnessing, I believe, probably one of the greatest comebacks since John McCain won the primary.”

Davis pushed back against recent questioning of the campaign’s continued pursuit of a win in Iowa — I believe “smoking crack” was one of the terms used by one prominent GOP strategist –despite many polls consistently showing Obama with a double-digit lead in the state. He said the campaign’s internal polling showed the race is “dead-even” in Iowa but did not elaborate. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is scheduled to appear Monday in Dubuque, Iowa.

He also rejected the notion that Palin is a drag on the ticket, citing the huge crowds at her rallies.

With some campaign officials accusing Sen. Barack Obama of attempting to buy the election in recent days, Davis bragged that Republicans have remained financially competitive.

“In the course of the general election period, since the end of our convention until today, the combined amount of spending between the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign, not counting any state dollars whatsoever, is $325 million. … When you are looking at all the various amounts of money spent in this campaign, you will be surprised to learn that we have been very competitive.”

Davis predicted that the McCain campaign is on track to outspend Obama on advertising by $10 million in the final week of the race. He also welcomed the news that the Obama campaign intends to ramp up advertising in previously uncontested states, including Arizona, North Dakota and Georgia.

“We encourage them to please pick other states that we intend to win, to spend their final campaign cash and spread it out as much as they can.”

Finally, Davis previewed McCain’s schedule for the final day of the campaign. He said McCain is slotted for  a last visit to New Hampshire Sunday, the state that launched his primary comeback.

“We do plan to campaign pretty actively throughout the last 24 hours of the campaign. We will hit a little bit of a nostalgia tour Sunday night, where John will have a final New Hampshire event. … Monday [McCain will] hit seven different cities in seven different states before winding up in Phoenix, Ariz. for Election Day.”

As the Prescott [Ariz.] Daily Courier reported today, McCain plans one final campaign event Monday. According to the Yavapai County Republican Party Website, he will visit northern Arizona for an evening rally in Prescott, the heart of one of the state’s fastest-growing regions.

The Democrats, naturally, seized upon the report, sending out an email stating that McCain was “forced to campaign” in Arizona.