The Supreme Court is now cogitating over a case involving corporations and free speech that many people worry could lead to a dramatic change in our political system. Specifically, that so much corporate money might soon flow into elections that it will have a disastrous effect on who gets elected and whose interests elected officials will really represent.

I think such worries may be exaggerated. In fact, the basis of these worries may well be misguided.

Let em explain. Corporations already have free speech rights when it comes to advancing their own interests. They have had them since there were corporations. The medium through which this free speech is expressed is advertising. And there’s no legal limit on how much can be spent on ads by a corporation to advance its own interests.

There are, however, limits on the content of these ads. I, as an individual, can say pretty much whatever I like to whomever I like about a given product. I can say it stinks. I can say it’s great. And as long as my comments are not funded by the product maker I’m opining about, and are not libelous or slanderous, my views are unlimited and protected free speech.

A corporation’s right of free speech to advance its interests via advertising, however, is far more limited when it comes to what can and can not be said. Corporations are limited by federal laws like those administered by the Federal Trade Commission — laws not being challenged in the courts.

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, corporations in their ads must be truthful and can’t be deceptive. They must have evidence to support their claims. These claims must be fair. They can’t deceive reasonable consumers in a material way. And all these limitations apply not only to what is explicable expressed, but also to what is implied.

If the Supreme Court decides that corporations have a free speech right to spend as much as they want on campaign ads to advance their own interests, that’s fine with me — as long as the content of this free speech is governed by the same rules that already apply to its other corporate free speech.

Let’s be clear about things here, and hope the Supreme Court is as well. If advancing a corporation’s interests involves free speech in the form of spending money on campaign ads, it’s just another form of product peddling. And if the product this time around happens to be a political candidate running for office, the same product peddling limitations should apply as are applied to other corporate free speech.