The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday.

Justices appear to be leaning towards ruling in favor of Citizens United, according to New York Times and Associated Press articles.

According to GavelGrab.org, the blog from Midwest Democracy Network partner organization Justice at Stake, Citizens United lawyer Theodore B. Olson advocated a broad ruling, claiming the case against Citizens United denied the organization of their First Amendment right to free speech.

The U.S. government could accept a loss, as long as two previous decisions are not overruled, said U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

The Court twice stood by the ruling, once in 1990 in the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce decision and the 2003 McCain-Feingold ruling that bars corporations from spending profits to push for a candidate’s election or defeat.

Currently nonprofit organizations that do not take corporate funds are allowed to spend money on federal elections.

If the Court overturns the previous rulings, unlimited corporate spending in federal elections could occur.

In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first appearance with the court, she and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia questioned both parties OpenSecrets.org writes.

Since 1947 the Court has banned both corporations and unions from spending money on candidates running for federal office. Corporate spending has been banned since 1907.

Listen to the entire hearing at C-SPAN.

The Associated Press constructed a brief synopsis of the important players in the case.

Read the CNN article here.

For more background information on the case, check past MDN posts here, here, here and here.