The United States Supreme Court reversed 60 years of election advertising legislation on Thursday when they ruled that unions and private corporations are now allowed unlimited spending to influence federal campaigns.

The 5-4 ruling threw out a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited unions and corporations from airing issue ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days prior to an election.

However, the decision did not affect the act’s stipulation that groups spending money on ads need to disclose the names of their donors. Corporations are also still prohibited from contributing directly to candidates and political parties.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., called the ruling a “terrible mistake” in a statement released Thursday.

“The Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president,” Feingold said in the statement. “The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections.”

According to Beverly Speer, advocacy director for the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the ruling could have negative effects for Wisconsin elections, although it is still too early to tell what the real impact will be.

“It definitely has caused reason for concern based on the amount of money that will pour in from corporate treasuries,” Speer said. “It’s going to totally drown out the citizen’s voice in the whole election process.”

Reid Magney, spokesperson for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, agreed it might take some time before the full effects of the decision are known.

“What this will probably do is give us a better idea of how much money is being spent because this decision allows for requirement of disclosure,” Ragney said. “In the past, when there have been ads that have not been regulated, people have had to guess.”

He also said the ruling should not affect the recent Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday which requires special interest groups to disclose the names of their contributors. The only part of the bill that could be affected is spending limitations.

Magney added the board will meet in March to discuss the new ruling and its impact on Wisconsin elections.

Not all opinions of the court decision have been critical. According to Jeff Patch, spokesperson for the Center for Competitive Politics, some view the ruling as a defense of freedom of speech.

Patch said the ruling does not effectively change previous laws because corporations and unions used to be able to form political action committees to create advertisements. The new ruling allows for smaller, independent businesses to have a say in elections.

“Campaign finance is meant to help citizens keep a watchful eye over government, not designed to let the government and candidates harass and keep an eye on citizens,” Patch said. “Ultimately voters

are smart enough to make their own decisions.”