Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

Campaign finance: Supreme Court declines case on contributions by corporations

A ban on contributions to candidates from corporations has been in effect since 1907. On Monday, the Supreme Court turned away a campaign-finance case seeking to allow such contributions.

Image

Workers cover the US Supreme Court building in Washington Sept. 2012, with a protective scrim, as work continues on the facade. The Supreme Court turned away a campaign-finance case seeking to allow political contributions to candidates from corporations.

Alex Brandon/AP

About these ads

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case testing whether a century-long ban on political contributions to candidates from corporations violates corporations’ freedom of speech.

The action came without comment by the justices.

At issue in the case was a section of federal election law that permits contributions of up to $2,500 from individuals, partnerships, and limited liability companies. But campaign-finance laws ban the same amount when coming from a corporate treasury.

The ban on corporate contributions to candidates has been in effect since 1907.

The case, Danielczyk v. United States (12-579), arose in the wake of the high court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled under the First Amendment to spend unlimited corporate money when making independent political expenditures during election season. The justices struck down a ban on such expenditures, saying that corporations enjoy free-speech rights just as individuals do.

Critics say the ruling opened the floodgates to independent expenditures by advocacy groups organized as corporations, drowning federal elections in massive amounts of corporate money that has funded a blitz of independent political advertisements.

In Danielczyk v. US, lawyers had sought to extend the Citizens United decision to lift a ban on corporate contributions to candidates.

The issue arose in a case filed against two corporate officers who allegedly sought to channel funds from their company to support Hillary Rodham Clinton during both her reelection campaign in the Senate and her unsuccessful run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Next

Page:   1   |   2


Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Share

Loading...