Supreme Court Lifts Corporate/Union Contribution Limits
On January 21, 2010, in the landmark decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United State Supreme Court reversed federal campaign finance laws, allowing corporations and unions to directly advocate for or against federal political candidates. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that, as long as corporations and unions do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties, First Amendment free speech rights allow corporations and unions to support or oppose candidates running for federal office. The impact of this decision is significant because of the potential that moneyed corporate and union interests could gain greater influence on future elections and lawmakers.
The decision resulted from a controversy between Citizens United, a non-profit organization, and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) involving the film “Hillary: The Movie.” The documentary criticized Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary campaign, and was released by Citizens United in theaters and on DVD. To increase distribution, Citizens United wanted to make the film available through video-on-demand. The FEC ruled that federal law prohibited the release of the film because it amounted to a campaign ad and that Citizens United could only use limited contributions from individuals to promote and broadcast the film. The Supreme Court reversed the FEC ruling, and held that corporate funding of political broadcasts in elections of federal candidates cannot be limited, because such a limitation violates the First Amendment right to free speech. This decision specifies that the First Amendment free speech right protects corporations and unions in the same way that it protects individuals with regard to the ability to spend money to influence elections.
The Supreme Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) which held that a Michigan campaign finance law prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision also overruled part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) which upheld federal restrictions on independent corporate expenditures.
The ruling will likely cause a change in corporate and union spending on future elections, most immediately the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential election. Although the extent of the decision’s impact is unknown, if the influx of corporate and union dollars is great, then moneyed interests could gain influence on future elections and lawmakers.
