Did the Supreme Court Just Save Newspapers?

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down limits on campaign spending by corporations, which was split along ideological lines, will change the political and media landscape in profound ways that transcend ideology.

Unless Chuck Schumer and others find a way to legislate around this, an explosion of advertising and other instruments of persuasion will soon erupt from every corner. In the future, political races will not just be about two or more candidates slugging it out; the messaging landscape will be flooded by a torrent of proxy and surrogate advertising, funded by those who have their own reasons for advocating on behalf of one candidate, vilifying another, or both.

So, everyone into the pool -- and that means labor unions; special interests groups, some of which will start up precisely for the purpose of influencing election outcomes; non-governmental organizations with a cause in their pockets or an ax to grind; corporations with specific agendas; wealthy individuals who are passionate about some issue or candidate.

My headline ironically makes reference to the fact that this will be a boon to the print version of newspapers. That's because advocacy groups have traditionally used the full-page newspaper ad -- a kind of performance space -- to deliver their messages. It's a convention that the public understands. It's a big graphic canvas that makes an impression -- and it has room for dozens of signatures at the bottom.

And, of course, it finds the right target. Newspaper readers are older and they vote. They're informed and they actually enjoy the public discourse.

Online advertising, including Google ad words and text links, are highly relevant and effective when targeted to behavioral intent – e.g. "pepperoni pizza delivered at midnight in Tribeca." (It's so effective, in fact, that it created the world's largest media company, with $6.67 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter.) But this form of advertising doesn't work to change opinion, to persuade, to communicate the breadth of support for a particular issue.

That's not to say online media won't be used -- and used to its full and massive potential -- if the Supreme Court decision sticks. This sea change will unleash oceans of money everywhere. Just as the Obama campaign used digital media to raise money, to organize and spread its message, we'll see many millions of dollars pour into the Internet.

Voters in places where incumbents and challengers are particularly important to specific interest groups -- gigundo ones like Big Oil and Big Pharma, or obscure industries desperately concerned about a swing vote on a congressional committee that controls their future -- will be inundated by precision-delivered messages. It's marketing by drone.

They'll see exquisitely precise advertising in their searches, stuck next to their e-mail, in display advertising as they journey from site to site. Not to mention onslaughts of broadcast and print ads.

What's more, advocacy groups will use the media to raise money for their efforts. Again, taking a chapter from the Obama campaign, special interest groups will use the Internet to plead their case to those who are most involved with -- and care most passionately about -- their cause. "We need your help to fight for our cause," the narrative will go.

So if you're a grower of domestic shitake mushrooms trying to defeat a congressman who doesn't want to raise important duties on Japanese shitake, you can target the mushroom industry and domestic mushroom lovers with fungal precision.

Alarmists worry about the effects of corporate and special interest money distorting the political process. And there is no question that in some cases there will be a riotous eruption of advertising, some of it vicious, misleading and worse. At the same time, groups like FactCheck.org and Politifact will grow in importance. I believe that consumers -- and voters are a species of consumer -- have become increasingly smart about using the Internet as a tool for information-gathering. And they are increasingly wise about separating the nuance from the noise.

I find it ironic that liberals -- who are the loudest worriers about the financial struggles of newspapers -- aren't welcoming the unintended consequences of this Supreme Court decision. It will mean millions of fresh dollars for their tired print friends.