You knew it would happen sooner or later. When the Supreme Court ruled last January in the Citizens United case that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates, critics speculated that big companies would spend millions of dollars to influence elections. A few even suggested that politicians would soon look like race-car drivers, covered with patches displaying corporate logos.

As we approach the mid-term elections, political Armageddon hasn't happened. For reasons we've discussed in previous posts, companies have largely stayed away from such political activities. While corporate-sponsored television ads might boost a candidate's prospects, they might also hurt a company's brand or - given the reputation of Corporate America - even cost the candidate votes.

We now have a test case, and it involves several well-known companies that have contributed to a group called Minnesota Forward, which backs pro-business candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) in statewide races. When Minnesota Forward ran its first political ads last month supporting Republican Tom Emmer for governor, the advocacy group MoveOn.org didn't pay much attention to Emmer's policy statements on economic growth. Instead, it focused on his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Activists have descended on the two best-known funders: Target Corp. and Best Buy. (Full disclosure: Both companies are members of the Public Affairs Council.) The opposition campaign has been sophisticated and unrelenting, with media outreach, Facebook pages calling for boycotts and online petitions. The publicity has brought gay rights groups into the controversy and even immigrant groups, which object to Emmer's positions on immigrant rights and the controversial Arizona law.

"The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation," Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel said last week. Yet coverage of Target's involvement in the campaign has raised the profile of Emmer's opponents and drawn negative attention to the company. Why? Here are three reasons:

(1) Everyone has been waiting to see if companies would take advantage of their new legal right to fund independent advertising. Being first always draws the spotlight.

(2) Companies are increasingly being defined by the organizations where they are members. As I noted in a post last October, MoveOn.org launched grassroots campaigns targeting companies that remained U.S. Chamber of Commerce members despite the chamber's conservative stance on climate change policy. MoveOn.org's anti-Target campaign (which is also an anti-Minnesota Forward campaign) takes a page out of the same playbook.

(3) Companies can also be defined by the entirety of a candidate's voting record. As TPM and others have pointed out, Target's reputation for supporting domestic partner benefits and sponsoring Minnesota's annual gay pride festivities has not insulated it from public anger. Instead, Target's positive reputation among many groups on social issues has created a media narrative of contrast and conflict.

What can we learn from this real-time experiment in new campaign finance practices? Although the Supreme Court calls political speech in its many forms "central to the First Amendment's meaning and purpose," it's important to remember that political speech invites pushback. In an era of distrust and intense transparency, scrutiny is much higher than it was a decade ago.

Political acts - lobbying, grassroots, campaign contributions, issue advertising - are all forms of communication. And communication is not about what you say; it's about what people hear you say. The public draws its own conclusions, which are often influenced by people and organizations that it trusts more than it trusts corporations.

This doesn't mean a company, a non-profit or a union should avoid the political process; this would likely work against its interests, whether those interests are commercial or cause-oriented. Our democracy is designed to encourage the sometimes brutal debate of different points of view in the marketplace of ideas.

But it's not getting any easier. And by now, most company executives should realize they will attract attention when they "speak" with their wallets. Making positive statements about a candidate is one thing; contributing money - either personal or corporate - to support a candidate will be carefully watched by that candidate's opponents.

How, then, do you approach election funding? A company's first step should be to adopt candidate contributions criteria, a strategy that PACs have used for decades. Here are sample criteria from Public Affairs Council files. Corporate PACs may fund candidates who, for example:

• Have demonstrated a favorable voting record.
• Have many company employees as constituents.
• Have demonstrated integrity in personal, political and philosophical matters.
• Are clearly qualified, based on previous political or civic activities or professional performance.
• Will listen to and consider various points of view.
• Have a reasonable shot at winning.

The list of possible criteria goes on and on - and it gets more specific. Some PACs only support incumbents, for example. Others focus on members of Congress in leadership positions. Still others split  contributions equally between Democrats and Republicans. (Ironically, Target's PAC has contributed more to Democrats than Republicans in four of the past six years, reports StarTribune.com.)

Establishing clear criteria - for a PAC or for independent expenditures - has many advantages. It ensures that funding decisions are in the firm's best interests, defensible and consistent with political history and values.

The second step, if a company plans to make a contribution that could prove controversial, is to first explain the rationale to stakeholders. Target and other leading companies have done this when taking unpopular positions on legislative issues. This approach doesn't inoculate a company from criticism, but it does give it a chance to explain its actions before the protests start.

One of the clear lessons of the Minnesota episode is that making an independent contribution in the wake of the Citizens United ruling is to invite an intense level of public scrutiny. And that, by the way, is what Moveon.Org intended. "If we don't push back hard, this will just be the tip of the iceberg," reads the advocacy group's website. "Other corporations will learn that they can pour money into elections to buy the outcome they want."

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.