Corporate ruling no sign of Supreme Court direction

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling backing corporate political spending was a big win for businesses, but the landmark decision does not necessarily portend victories for them in other major cases this term.

The 5-4 ruling on Thursday recognized new free-speech rights for corporations and boldly overturned two major precedents by ending federal and state limits on independent spending by corporations to support or oppose candidates.

While the court's conservative majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts has often sided with corporations, legal experts said the ruling does not foreshadow how the court will rule in other major forthcoming business cases.

Republicans generally hailed the decision that allows corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress, a decision expected to unleash a flood of corporate money into the U.S. political system.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, denounced it for giving Wall Street banks, health insurance and big oil companies and the other special interests even more power to influence elections and government decisions.

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said as he instructed his administration to work with Congress in responding to the ruling.

Attorney Tom Goldstein, who argues before the Supreme Court, said: "The conservative majority recognizes corporations as essential and valuable parts of American society. This is one area among many that the court takes a positive view of corporations' role."

"On critical constitutional issues, the conservatives are willing to overturn decisions they think are misguided, whether those precedents are new or old," said Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSblog, which closely follows the high court.

NO PRO-BUSINESS BIAS SEEN

But he and others said the decision should not be viewed as reflecting a pro-business bias. "The court still looks at each case individually," Goldstein said.

The Supreme Court this term has a number of other major business cases to be decided by the end of June.

It will decide whether to make it more difficult for shareholders to sue for excessive fees charged by the country's $11 trillion mutual fund industry and will rule on a key patent issue closely watched by software, biotech firms and other industries.

The court also seems ready to strike down a law involving one type of fraud in which corporate executives must not deprive their companies of "honest services" -- cases involving former Enron Corp executive Jeffrey Skilling and media baron Conrad Black.

Oral arguments last year showed the court's skepticism about that law which also can apply to politicians.

Legal experts said Thursday's ruling on campaign spending showed a court sympathetic to companies when it comes to political speech.

"In tone and spirit, the majority opinion calls to mind an earlier period of conservative judicial ascendancy, when the interests of corporations were central to the court's constitutional vision," said Michael Dorf, a Cornell University law professor.

Columbia University Professor Nathaniel Persily, one of the nation's experts on election law, said the ruling means that corporations, for the purpose of election spending, basically have the same rights as individuals.

But Persily and others said they doubted that corporations were eager to go down the road of pouring huge amounts of money into political campaigns. "I don't think corporations actually are itching to spend that much on electioneering expenditures," he said.

(Editing by Howard Goller)