WASHINGTON — Renewing the debate over the First Amendment rights of corporations, the Supreme Court heard arguments Sept. 9 that could lead to a major loosening of restrictions on participation in elections by companies and unions.

During a special session of the Court, the justices considered the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for a second time — a reargument the Court itself ordered, to weigh whether important precedents that have allowed the government to ban corporate and union expenditures in campaigns should be overturned on First Amendment grounds.

In their questioning, four justices — Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito Jr. — made it clear they were skeptical of the precedents and concerned about what Kennedy called the “ongoing chill” on speech that has resulted. Justice Clarence Thomas asked no questions, as usual, but he has objected to the precedents in the past and is a consistent vote against most kinds of campaign regulation.

If the Court reverses Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the relevant part of McConnell v. FEC, critics say corporate wealth will re-enter and dominate campaigns in ways that have not been seen in more than a century.

“Since the dawn of the Republic, the Court has recognized that corporations are artificial entities that enjoy unique advantages and must therefore be subject to greater government oversight,” said Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “If the Court turns its back on this constitutional text and history, it will blatantly disregard the will of the people and unleash corporate influence on elections.”

Groups that oppose campaign restrictions were cheered by the 93-minute session. “Based on today’s argument, free-speech advocates can be optimistic for a broad vindication of First Amendment rights,” said Steve Simpson, a lawyer for the libertarian Institute for Justice. “Under the First Amendment, the government has no business deciding which speakers gain admittance to the marketplace of ideas.”

Updated September 2009