The stakes couldn’t be higher in this week’s battle over who fills the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Corporate influence and control over the levers of power in our democracy has reached dangerous levels, something virtually every American understands. Nine out of 10 voters (93 percent) believe that the current rules of the game “empower wealthy special interests over everyday Americans,” and three out of four voters (77 percent) want the Senate to reject any Supreme Court nominee who will help the wealthy and privileged wield more power in our elections.

Every indication is that President Trump’s nominee for the nation’s highest court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, will do just that. Gorsuch comes from the corporate world and has shown a consistent pro-corporate bias cloaked in a cold judicial calculus that would make cost-benefit ratios the language of the land, with little place left for human concerns.

It’s no wonder then that dark money groups, financed by secretive billionaires, have spent $17 million to blockade Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination and ram through Gorsuch – a man pre-selected by the right-wing, billionaire-backed Federalist Society.

Sen. Angus King could cast the deciding vote on whether or not those wealthy special interests succeed.

During Sunshine Week in March, an annual event highlighting the importance of transparency in government, King re-introduced his Real Time Transparency Act, a bill to give voters more information about the big donors influencing their elected officials.

“Campaigns should be a battle of ideas on how to best serve the needs of the American people – not a shadow fight among wealthy donors and special-interest groups who have their fingers on the purse strings,” King said in a statement introducing the legislation.

He’s right. If wealthy special interests are going to spend millions of dollars to influence our elections, we at least deserve to know about it. Or, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

I’m glad King is taking on this important issue through legislation, but if he wants to act right now to make sure our elections are transparent and accountable, his best opportunity is to oppose Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and support a 60-vote standard for his approval. Both Gorsuch’s record on money in politics and his answers during his confirmation hearing reveal a troubling disregard for common-sense campaign finance laws, especially in the area of transparency in political spending.

During an exchange with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gorsuch would not say whether the groups spending millions on his behalf should have to disclose their donors. Even when asked directly if he believes disclosure of political spending is in “the public interest,” he wouldn’t answer. In fact, Gorsuch wouldn’t say anything to acknowledge the vital importance disclosure of political spending plays for voters and our democracy, something that the Supreme Court has recognized for more than 40 years and recently reaffirmed 8-1 in Citizens United.

He did, however, go out of his way to emphasize the dangers of disclosure, saying it “can be used as a weapon to silence voices” – music to the ears of the Koch brothers and a host of dark money groups fighting to weaken disclosure laws and dominate elections from the shadows.

He even refused to say whether it should be illegal for a major donor to buy a congressman’s vote.

His record is even more troubling. In one case, Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that courts should give a higher level of protection to campaign contributions than the Supreme Court has, at times, provided even to our precious right to vote. This logic could gut one of the few remaining protections against big money: the federal bar against corporations giving directly to candidates and political parties.

I am deeply concerned that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch would vote to make it easier for giant corporations and the wealthy to secretly influence our elections and harder for voters to be heard. Based on his record, it seems clear that Gorsuch would further exacerbate the pro-business bias of the current Supreme Court, locking in control over the rules of the game and leaving few protections against the conversion of wealth into political power.

To protect transparency and the integrity of our government, Angus King must oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation and require a 60-vote threshold for his confirmation.