Tucked away in Andrew Sullivan’s note on the Supreme Court’s first time use of the word “blog” was the answer to the perceived problem of corporate free speech in politics: more free speech.

“Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,” - Justice Anthony Kennedy, marking the first time “blog” has been used in a Supreme Court opinion.

Justice Kennedy rightfully points to the emerging power of social media.

On Twitter and Facebook, for example, would you know the difference between a $200,000,000 status update and a 2 cents status update? And how much louder can either be when the value of the content is entirely up to your extended network?

Those who fear what yesterday’s ruling means to politics in America should take a closer look at what money buys these days in politics. It buys very expensive legacy media (TV, print, radio, and direct mail). The last time I checked, more people get their political news online where the flow of information is fueled by trust.

Corporations should have the right to let us all know whose side they are on. Are they on the side of their customers, or are they on the side of making life more expensive and difficult for their customers?

Like government, corporate power only goes as far as we are willing to give them our trust and money. The power of corporate speech can just as easily reveal an emerging power Americans have to swiftly and collectively dump their stock in the harbor.