A top story on Google News and a trending topic on Twitter right now is the United States Supreme Court decision on Citizen’s United v. FEC. There are many aspects to this case, and many discussions are taking place on conference calls, emails, Facebook and beyond.

The reaction has been strong and fast. Rep. Alan Grayson referred to this as “the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.” Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Scott described the ruling as a historic mistake by activist judges. Common Cause president Bob Edgar described this as the superbowl of really bad decisions, returning us to a day when robber barons ruled. Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer described the decision as a disaster for the American people and a very dark day for the Supreme Court. Senator Chris Dodd describes this as “a terrible day for American Democracy” where the “Supreme Court has essentially given corporations free rein to drown out the voices of the America people.”

To illustrate Trevor Scott’s comment, it is worth nothing that the ruling strikes down over a century of U.S. Campaign law, overruled three Supreme Court rulings with no changes to justify overruling the previous rulings other than different justices on the bench, abandons judicial restraint by making a very broad ruling on very narrowly defined issues and shows distain for Congresses judgments about the political process.

In essence, what the ruling does is allow corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates. While much of the focus has been on political advertisements, which is what the initial case was about, this ruling allows for any sort of expenditures, such as direct mailings, paying people to go door to door to advocate for or against political candidates, and any other forms of independent expenditures.

How much money are we talking about? Well, if just the top hundred corporations in the United States each contributed 1% of their 2008 profits to campaigning for Presidential candidates, that would be over twice the total amount spent by all the candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election.

The ruling does not lift the ban on direct contributions to campaigns or the use of ‘soft-money’. The disclosure requirements were also upheld, yet are weak since it may be hard to trace the money through a trail of corporations from the corporation making the initial contribution to the corporation that finally makes the independent expenditure.

In terms of fixing the many problems that the Supreme Court decision has generated, there are three common approaches being discussed.

While the court ruling means that there can be no limit on corporate independent expenditures, it does not strike down voluntary public financing laws. One means to balance out the vast increase in the political powers of corporations is to increase public financing of campaigns.

In the U.S. Congress, there is the Fair Elections Now Act that has been introduced by Rep Larson from Connecticut and currently has 126 co-sponsors. One of the most important things people concerned about the Supreme Court decision should do is contact their legislators in Washington and ask them to support the Fair Elections Now Act.

Another effort is to add shareholder accountability to the requirements of corporations. Language has been drafted, but no legislation yet introduced, that would require any corporation to receive permission from a majority of shareholders before making any independent political expenditure.

Perhaps the most complicated effort is working towards a constitutional amendment that would limit or abolish corporate personhood. Constitutional amendments can take a long time, yet Sen. Dodd includes “a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and states to put appropriate limits on campaign spending” as one of the options he intends to pursue.

Over the coming hours and days, we can expect many more statements as well as ideas on how to deal with this problem.