Last week, despite the government shutdown, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether wealthy Americans are entitled to put more dollars into the pockets of candidates during election time. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, is the most controversial campaign finance issue since the famous Citizens United case from 2010, which ruled in favor of removing the limit on how much companies can contribute to political campaigns.

The plaintiff in the case is businessman and Republican supporter Shaun McCutcheon. In 2012, he donated less than the $2,600 limit per individual candidate within two years. His total donations amounted to about $33,000, which was divided between 16 candidates. However, McCutcheon wanted to contribute to more candidates. He wanted to donate so much, that the combined total would have surpassed the aggregate limit – the $48,600 an individual is allowed to give to all candidates every two years.

Therefore, he took his case to the Supreme Court because he saw this as a violation of his freedom of speech. Throughout the time John G. Roberts has been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, there have been five cases dealing with campaign finance laws, the Washington Post reported. Each time, the Supreme Court struck down an aspect of the law for being unconstitutional.

“Every issue is going to be different,” Joseph Mello, a political science professor at DePaul specializing in constitutional law, said. “The Roberts court has been very sympathetic to big business. However, there was a lot of public outrage after Citizens United, which can influence a case.”

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor finds the current Supreme Court’s favor toward corporations to be troubling. Despite usually having conservative leanings and being appointed by President Ronald Reagan, she understood the problematic dynamics of campaign financing and usually voted to uphold its limits.

”We’re in a bit of trouble in this whole area, I think,” O’Connor said, according to the Associated Press. “It needs attention and careful thinking as to how we can go from here. Citizens United opened a lot of issues.”

The purpose behind campaign finance regulations, which were put in place after the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, was to decrease the threat of government corruption and politicians strictly catering to those who provided the most funds throughout an election.

Therefore, there is a legitimate government interest in restricting the amount of money being given to a political candidate: to prevent them from speaking solely for the interests of a wealthy campaign contributor instead of the population of their district, state and/or country as a whole.

“There would be instances of clear corruption,” David Vance, the director of communications and research at Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for reasonable limits on campaign finance and helps governments with enacting these limits, said. “It is not the way government is supposed to work; it is not supposed to go to the highest bidder.”

Regardless of which side wins, the final decision is likely going to be a close 5-4 with Roberts as the deciding factor. According to the Los Angeles Times, Roberts was concerned about giving donors the complete freedom to write checks for millions of dollars to party officials. However, he also does not see why a person should not be able to give significant donations to dozens of candidates.

If that is the case and all limits for individuals are eliminated, the money given to elections will be insurmountable, as the wealthy will line up to pay to have their voices be heard.