The United States has never had a court case involving the right to run a commercial ad.

In fact, only two other countries have ever used the power to do so, both with Citizens United. 

The ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on Wednesday gives states the ability to put up signs that say “I support” candidates they support, which they can then post in all of the state’s 500-plus counties, and can also run ads there on television.

It also allows for groups that are not required to disclose their donors to do it.

It’s the first precedent the Supreme of the Supreme Courts has set, according to Alex Isenberg, who runs Democracy Now!

in Washington, D.C. “This could have enormous impact on how voters decide elections and is a huge step toward more transparency and accountability,” Isenberg said. 

According to the Supreme court, the campaign contribution law is the most recent in a series of decisions that have established the Supreme is the final arbiter of election law in the country.

Isenberg says that this is a significant development, as a number of other states have begun considering similar laws, such as California’s, to ensure that outside groups can be allowed to run ads in the elections they support.

“The Supreme Court has finally made clear what’s happening and has made clear that you can’t get rid of Citizens United, but you can limit who can participate in elections, so it’s going to be really hard to do,” he said.

The court ruling came just a few days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to run television ads in Ohio and Wisconsin, two states that have been in the midst of recounts in which they say they will spend tens of millions of dollars to try to find votes for Jill Stein. 

What does it mean for people like Irena Cusi, who is running for the state legislature?

Cusi is an activist in the local Democratic Party.

She says the court decision will help her make her case that voters have a right to know the identities of the donors who are contributing to the candidates they are supporting. 

Isenberg said the decision will also help people who are running in the general election because it will allow them to say “this is a really, really expensive, very dangerous campaign” and not be afraid to get in there and get the money. 

Cusid’s campaign was started with a $2,000 check from a businessman named Jeffrey Pritzker, who has pledged more than $1.4 billion to a number at the center of the 2016 election.

The money is going to help her get in front of voters who might not have a clue about the names of the people who donated to her campaign, he said in a recent interview with CNN. 

Can anyone explain to me what this means for me?

Cuz I’m not a candidate or anything, Isenberg told me.

I can tell you that the court has made it clear that there is no reason for people to have to tell you who they are.

They have the right.

Irena told me that she thinks she is being targeted by outside groups.

Isenberg says Cusid has received a large number of death threats, but she thinks the people behind these threats may be attempting to do what they can to prevent her from being able to run her campaign.

“I can’t even believe that the people that are sending me death threats have had the nerve to say that,” she said.

“What this means is that these people, the billionaire class, they’re really out to get people like me,” Isenburg said.

“This could be the beginning of a movement where the rich and powerful can no longer get away with this.” 

What do you think of the decision?

Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Read more stories from the US: New poll: Trump losing in Michigan; Biden leading in Pennsylvania and Florida; Clinton winning Colorado and Nevada