Court Frees Corporate Contributions

Story

Court Frees Corporate Contributions

Special Report - January 27, 2010
The Supreme Court handed down a ruling January 21 that will allow more direct financial involvement by corporations in elections. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court struck down portions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act and various federal laws dating back to 1907 as unconstitutionally infringing on the First Amendment rights of corporations. The effect of the 5–4 decision is that both for-profit and nonprofit entities may spend freely on political advertising in support of or in opposition to federal candidates as long as they do act independent of the specific campaigns. The court upheld a prohibition on corporations contributing directly to candidates, and a requirement that the group paying for the ad must be disclosed.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 57-page opinion with Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, Jr. concurring, although Justice Thomas wrote his own opinion. They found no distinction between the First Amendment rights of corporations and those of individuals. In fact, the decision found that "corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors of fallacies in speech of all sorts." The court expressed concern with the government using “its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear,” as a means by which “to control thought."

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 90-page dissenting opinion for himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. He cited concerns about “the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering” and decades of precedent.

The decision is expected to impact this year’s midterm elections through a jump in advertising and corporate funds. Still, questions remain about 23 states with laws in place similar to the federal restrictions that were overruled, and the ability of foreign companies to impact American elections through political advertisements.