Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, May 28, 2011

Judge rules against corporate contribution ban

May 28, 2011

Advertisement

— A U.S. judge has ruled that the campaign finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, saying that a recent Supreme Court decision gives companies the same right to donate as individual citizens enjoy.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two people charged with illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 Senate and 2008 presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says under the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision last year, corporations have the right to give to federal candidates.

The ruling from the federal judge in Virginia is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to corporate spending on campaign activities by independent groups, such as ads run by third parties to favor one side, not to direct contributions to the candidates themselves.

Cacheris noted in his ruling that only one other court has addressed the issue in the wake of Citizens United ruling. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled the other way, allowing a state ban on corporate contributions to stand.

“(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech,” Cacheris wrote in his 52-page opinion.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 10 months ago

"The question isn't whether corporations have the same rights as individuals do"

The courts have already declared that corporations are people, so you're right, that's not the question. It's an idiotic ruling any way you want to look at it, but there it is.

0

Liberty_One 2 years, 10 months ago

The courts are unfortunately coming at this from the wrong angle. The question isn't whether corporations have the same rights as individuals do, but whether government have the power to limit political speech--no matter the source. Of course such a view would be problematic for the courts because they have basically said the government has any and all power it wants and the only limitations are when it directly infringes upon an individual right--and only certain ones at that.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.