Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Michigan state law, which forbade corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to candidates for elective office, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The court's finding in this case was ultimately overturned in 2010, when the high court rendered its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[1]
Background
The Michigan Campaign Finance Act prohibited corporations "from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices." State lawmakers enacted this prohibition with the understanding that "the unique legal and economic characteristics of corporations necessitate some regulation of their political expenditures to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption." Although corporations were barred by state law from using their general funds to support the election or defeat of state-level candidates, corporations were permitted to create independent funds for political purposes.[1]
In 1985, the state held a special election for the Michigan House of Representatives. In that contest, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce desired to place an advertisement in a local paper supporting a candidate. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce "sought to use its general treasury funds" for that purpose, in violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce brought suit against Richard Austin in his capacity as Michigan Secretary of State, arguing that the prohibition violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.[2]
A federal district court ruled in favor of the state, but the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on October 31, 1989.[1][2]
Decision
On March 27, 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, finding that the prohibition against corporations making independent expenditures from their general funds did not violate the United States Constitution. The majority opinion, which was penned by Justice Thurgood Marshall, read in part as follows:[2]
| “ | Michigan identified as a serious danger the significant possibility that corporate political expenditures will undermine the integrity of the political process, and it has implemented a narrowly tailored solution to that problem. By requiring corporations to make all independent political expenditures through a separate fund made up of money solicited expressly for political purposes, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act reduces the threat that huge corporate treasuries amassed with the aid of favorable state laws will be used to influence unfairly the outcome of elections.[3] | ” |
| —Thurgood Marshall | ||
Marshall was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia dissented.[1]
Subsequent developments
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to freedom of expression applies to corporations; thus, the government cannot limit political spending by corporations. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.[4][5]
| “ | Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.[6][3] | ” |
| —Justice Anthony Kennedy | ||
The court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by the sponsors of political advertisements. The court also sustained the prohibition against direct contributions by corporations to candidates.[7]
See also
- Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
- State campaign finance agencies
- Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Oyez.org – IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce," accessed March 22, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 FindLaw, "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce," accessed March 22, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Slate, "Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform," January 21, 2010
- ↑ The New York Times, "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit," January 21, 2010
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Opinion," January 21, 2010
- ↑ National Journal, "Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United," January 21, 2010
