According to Bruce Nussbaum, yes.

The Supreme Court Votes Against Innovation

Posted by: Bruce Nussbaum on January 22

The 5 to 4 vote by the Supreme Court to allow corporations and unions to use their general funds to directly support political candidates is really a vote against innovation and economic growth. It is a vote for Old Technology Against New Technology, the Big against the Small, the Established against the Entrepreneurial, the Well-Connected against the Insurgent. Big corporations,in particular, will now have the means to game the legislative as well as regulatory systems in their favor. They will be able to focus the flows of tax-payer money to their industries and have the government subsidize their companies.

The US government has already become a pay-to-play pit of corruption. The only difference between what happens in Washington and every state capital and what happens in Asia or the Middle East is that America has legalized corruption in the form of lobbying while other countries have not. The Supreme Court decision will only make this corruption worse.

If you’re sitting in Silicon Valley thinking of new businesses that will challenge the status quo, this Supreme Court vote is a vote against you.

My response:

well, it depends on whether or not you think corporations being allowed to air political ads without restriction is bad. which is what the ruling is about. (not about unrestricted campaign contributions). the SCOTUS ruling is really just about messaging (and timing thereof). this is only a problem if you think americans actually listen to political ads. (that may or may not have been a rhetorical statement). :)

i do, however, think this has profound implications for those in the creative fields who get hired to develop these messages. once upon a time design and innovation was safe in its little apolitical bubble. propaganda for consumption and profit's sake.

not any more. pop!

bruce, i do think this will have an affect on the architecture of the political process, and not for the better. if you disliked attack ads, then we're in for a new era of influence peddling dynamics, but this time the dollars are spent on not only politicians but on the electorate itself.

however, i really am earnestly trying to buy your argument that this is bad for "innovation" per se. i don't see it. this ruling allows anyone, traditional or insurgent, to attempt to influence the open electorate's vote, SCOTUS pulled any gates there might have existed, forever down.

again, the thing you might want to think about further, since you traffic in the design and innovation worlds, is how corporate political messaging....will get innovated. and it will. my nightmare is that the creative professions are going to bite on this like any lucrative client engagement (ie, like flies on shit, especially with the recession) without batting an eyelash at the political, ergo societal, ramifications of their "creatively innovative" work.

kinda like giving a gun to a baby, if you ask me.