The real impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is likely to be far less dire than first suggested by the media, pundits and even President Obama, reports Corporate Counsel magazine in an article that features Council president Doug Pinkham.

After the ruling - in which the high court loosened long-standing spending restrictions on corporations, associations and unions during federal elections, several politicians and commentators predicted the ruling would allow a "flood of corporate money (to) overwhelm elections and subvert democracy," the magazine reports.

But the article asserts that it's unlikely companies will be keen to spend money in tight economic times, or to associate put their names behind candidates or issues that may lose -- or oppose those that may win.

"Even if you help elect someone sympathetic to your point of view, you may be alienating your employees, or your shareholders, or your customers, who may not hold your views," Pinkham says in the article titled "So Far, They're Just Not Buyin' It: Companies Hold Off on Political Ads."

And if a company advertises against a candidate who wins, "I don't think they're going to get into his office for a meeting anytime soon," Pinkham said. "There's more downside than upside."

Read the full story here.