BulletProofBlog the blog on crisis communications

Left-leaning voices are calling it the Supreme Court’s most damaging ruling since 1857’s Dred Scott decision. Those on the right are cheering it as a repeal of “one of the worst abridgments of the First Amendment since the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.” But no matter what you think of the High Court’s recent move to repeal limits on corporate spending on political campaigns, it’s clear that the 2010 election cycle is shaping up to be unlike any we’ve ever seen – though not for the reason that many might think.

Having struck down a 63-year ban on using corporate and labor union general funds to produce and air advertisements either supporting or opposing candidates for national office, the Supreme Court has not only changed the way elections will be run; it has changed the way they will be covered. With pundits and politicians going back hundreds of years in the annals of American history to articulate just how significantly this decision will impact the political process, there’s little doubt that how business and labor interests choose to leverage the ruling is going to be a major media focus moving forward.

Now, the media analyses of political advertising that accompany every election cycle won’t only focus on the tone, accuracy, or issue stances put forth by a particular ad; they are going to include detailed examinations of who is behind the messaging and why. The more impactful the ad, the more intense the spotlight will be.  Those that might attempt to cover their tracks by channeling political activities through intermediaries will likely only inflame the media’s zeal to get to the bottom of the story.

Business interests have always risked alienating about half of their consumers, investors, and employees when wading into the messy world of politics – but now, the stakes have risen dramatically. Back in 1989, The National Organization of Women organized a boycott of Domino’s Pizza because of rumors that the company donated to anti-abortion groups such as Operation Rescue. Even though the rumors were later proven untrue, the brand damage was done.

If such a backlash can arise over a global brand’s position on one particular issue, imagine what might be in the offing for a company whose support of one particular candidate could be construed as support for every issue stance that candidate has ever articulated. Throw today’s hyper-polarized environment into the mix and the liabilities facing any company that races headlong into the political fray are simply too numerous to ignore.

The Supreme Court has opened the door for Corporate America to take a greater role in political discourse. But before companies get carried away, they would be wise to consider all that’s at stake when exercising their newfound and highly-controversial rights.