Although its nine workers labor outside the political limelight that shines brightly on the White House and Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court makes decisions each year that profoundly influence our government and our country as a whole.

One such decision was made last Thursday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2009), a case whose name may justifiably join the likes of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973) as the most pivotal cases in our nation’s history. While the case did not deal with the intense passions that accompanied segregation and abortion, it did deal with the way our representatives are elected and, even more importantly, influenced.

In a 5–4 decision reflecting a purely partisan divide, the court reversed the judicial trend of limiting the permissible amount of campaign contributions made by politically interested corporations, ruling that the government may no longer limit political spending by corporations in candidate elections. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that limiting any institution’s contributions to elections would be unconstitutional because it would limit their First Amendment right to political speech while also undermining the public’s right to be exposed to a multitude of ideas.

Of course, corporations aren’t people and arguably only represent the interests of the few people who rule them, and it is laughable to label what campaign advertising offers as a multitude of ideas, but that’s not the point.

The point is that now, although it’s hard to believe we could be more so, we citizens will be more removed from the electoral process and from legislators’ decisions than they have ever been.

Sure, we will still play a role by voting for one candidate or another once Election Day rolls around, but whom the majority of us choose will be a largely foregone conclusion. Such is the case because, as vulnerable and insignificant as it makes our rational minds seem, history has proven that the candidate who spends the most almost always wins. Granted, congressional and presidential hopefuls aren’t straight-up buying our votes through Greek-style “panem et circenses” — “bread and circuses” — or through Tammany Hall- and Chicago-style “special favors,” but the evidence soundly proves that those who spend more win more votes the vast majority of the time.

Following the 2006 congressional midterm elections, for just one example, the Illinois Public Interest Research Group analyzed FEC data and found that fundraising and campaign spending were by far the most accurate predictors of who won primary elections. They reported that the candidate with more cash won a whopping 92 percent of the 2006 major-party primaries.

Search the FEC Web site and the political power of money becomes even clearer. In Iowa, for example, Senators Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin were the only candidates whose coffers were in the millions before the 2008 election cycle.

In my home state, Maryland, Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars more than their many challengers in 2008. As you might notice, I refer to these men and this woman as senators because, thanks no doubt to their big spending, they are indeed Iowa’s and Maryland’s current senators.

And can you guess whether John McCain or Barack Obama fundraised and spent more in the year leading up to their Nov. 4, 2008, faceoff? While I won’t bore you with each month’s numbers, suffice to say Obama set a record $55 million for presidential fundraising in February, reset it by raising $66 million in August, and clearly outspent McCain on his way to the White House.

So now, thanks to the Supreme Court, big spenders are going to have even more to spend during elections. The Democrat and Republican deemed most viable by interest groups, and who are both heavily invested in by many of the same interest groups, will face off, and one will win.

But this means the interest groups will essentially win either way. They will win because interest groups do not actually base their contributions on the likelihood of success or their partisan leanings. Instead, they hedge their bets by investing in both candidates to a great enough extent that, should candidate A or B win, Mr. A or Mrs. B will be beholden to them. You see, unlike in Vegas or at Prairie Meadows, where people take chances and big winners or losers are created, these groups aren’t really risking all that much. Sure, they might not split their investments 50–50, but whatever the outcome, the price of admission is well worth four or six years’ worth of purchased influence.

Thus, while President Obama may have denounced the Court’s ruling as “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” and suggested that the court’s ruling will benefit Republicans to the detriment of Democrats, the contention is hogwash.

Incumbent Democrats will benefit just as much as incumbent Republicans and, with campaigns that are more well-funded than ever, will remain in Washington to do the bidding of those many interest groups who helped them get or stay there.

It is the would-be politicians who are qualified, have fresh ideas and might well do a much better job than many of those representatives who have held their seats for decades or have been vetted and handpicked by powerful interests, who lose. More importantly, it is we, the citizens to whom congressmen, congresswomen and the president are supposed to be beholden, who lose.

So, while it will be harder than ever thanks to the Supreme Court, try to see past the most visible candidates who will this summer offer campaign advertising the quantity of which we’ve never seen. Try to find those other candidates, who I guarantee are out there, inform yourself of their qualities and ideas and make a rational decision of who would best represent your interests. Try this, because we are not pawns. We are citizens of a democracy and it’s time we act like it.

Steve Adams is a graduate student in journalism and mass communication from Annapolis, Md.