Local TV and radio stations have been hurting with the ad recession and the pullback of the auto industry, but late last week the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on election financing that promises to send hundreds of millions of ad dollars their way.

Figure $450 million to $500 million on top of the $3.5 billion already expected to be spent on advertising this election year, and it should lead to many millions more in the 2012 presidential race.

The 5-4 decision, released on Thursday, lifts a ban on corporations and unions running advertising or providing other forms of support to candidates and their campaigns, though direct monetary contributions are still prohibited.

The court found that the ban was a violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. The case was brought by a group called Citizens United after it was prohibited from buying television airtime to promote an anti-Hillary Clinton film during the 2008 presidential campaign. The group was backed by corporate money.

While the decision addressed the federal ban, it's likely to loosen up corporate and union election spending at the state and local levels as well, since the decision opens the way for challenges to similar state laws and local ordinances.

The sweeping decision also opens up the opportunity for businesses and unions to contribute not just money but their expertise and service to candidates. So one could imagine a corporation contributing marketing expertise to candidates, along with drivers and even campaign workers.

The end result, say media experts, is that getting elected to office could get a lot more expensive, and even more dependent on the deep pockets of special interest groups of all stripes.

“Even the very local offices are going to start costing more to attain,” says Kip Cassino, vice president of research for Borrell and Associates, which tracks local ad spending.

Borrell estimates the new ruling will bring an additional $450 million in ad dollars to this year's elections.

Wells Fargo media analyst Marci Ryvicker estimates the court's ruling could bring an additional $250 million to $500 million.

Even better for media outlets, this new wave of political advertising will not qualify for a station's lowest ad rates, which must be offered to candidates. Corporations and unions will have to pay the going rate, which can be considerably higher.

While some in Washington have attempted to put caps on election spending over the years by restricting who can give and by what means, candidates and the election industry have been very successful in either gutting or working around the new laws, and that's led to more and more expensive campaigns.

Borrell's Cassino estimates that total election spending per voter including advertising has increased from approximately $13 in 1996 to $27.50 in 2008, a 107 percent increase. With mid-term spending already expected to surpass the last presidential election, this additional windfall should send totals up to record heights.

One effect of the ruling will be to reduce the role of political action committees, which previously served as the venue of choice for corporations seeking to influence elections. They'll play a smaller role now that corporations can purchase advertising directly. PACs now account for nearly 25 percent of all election spending.

Following last week's ruling, it's not entirely clear how corporations will choose to become involved in election campaigns.

Some wonder just how public corporations will want to go to support particular candidates. Says lawyer Rachel Stilwell of Gladstone Michel Weisberg Willner & Sloane, ALC, a media law firm based in Marina del Rey, Calif., “It’s possible not all of a corporation’s shareholders will agree with the decision to support a particular candidate.”

For that matter, corporations will be free to directly finance their own issue advertising, and the advantage of course is they would have total control over the messages, a huge advantage over contributing to a PAC. But there's a real question as to how much such issue advertising will emerge.

It may be a far more public role than many corporations will want to assume. They may prefer a more behind-the scenes role.

Quips Lloyd Betourney, founding partner of The Public Response Group, the Chicago-based Democratic strategist: “There will be fewer ads telling people to call their congressman if he’s already been bought by big business."

At some point, efforts will emerge to pass new laws re-imposing restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. President Obama has indicated he will challenge Congress to generate new campaign finance legislation. But that could take many months, if not years, and in the meantime the spigot is open and is sure stay open.