Tag Archives: Citizens United

Campaign donation issue reopened

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 12-536.   The gist of this case deals with the constitutionality of the two-year ceilings that federal law sets on what an individual can give during a campaign for the presidency or Congress, in donations to candidates, to political parties, or to other political committees.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly promise whether it would reconsider its decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).  Since Buckley, the government had more leeway to control contributions to candidates or political organizations than over spending by candidates or by independent political activists.

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided a hotly controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  In Citizens United, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional any limit on spending during federal campaigns by corporations or labor unions, so long as they spent the money independently of a candidate or candidate organization.

In McCutcheon, McCutcheon wants to be able to give more contributions than the two-year overall limits.  McCutcheon’s contributions, if he could go over the limit, would have exceeded the two-year ceiling by $26,200.

Under federal law, the ceiling for the 2011-2012 campaign season was $2,500 per election to any candidate or a candidate’s campaign organization, no more than $30,800 per year to a national political party, no more than $10,000 per year to a state political party, and no more than $5,000 to any other political committee.

The two year ceiling for that same period, which is the issue in this case, is set at $177,000 overall.  That is broken down into $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to non-candidate entities.  The second amount was restricted in that no more than $46,200 could be given to a state party or a non-candidate committee.

via Campaign donation issue reopened : SCOTUSblog.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, civil rights, courts, Judges, legal decision, rules, Supreme Court, union

Alito Defends Citizens United

ustice Samuel A. Alito Jr. says opponents of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision have waged a successful public relations campaign, even if their point is misguided.

Opponents have targeted Citizens United for its holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to expressly support political candidates with independent spending. Speaking on Thursday, Alito pointed to the public relations campaign against free speech rights for corporations that has gathered steam since the decision, report the Associated Press and The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

“It is pithy, it fits on a bumper sticker, and in fact a variety of bumper stickers are available,” Alito said at a Federalist Society dinner. He pointed to two examples: “End Corporate Personhood” and “Life does not begin at incorporation.”

Alito said there may be arguments for overturning Citizens United, but not on the basis that corporations lack First Amendment rights. Media corporations already have such rights, the court has made clear, when they were fighting libel suits or seeking the right to publish the Pentagon papers, Alito said.

Alito also did some reminiscing during the speech as he talked about his constitutional law class at Yale Law School with Charles Reich, who had written several books about the decline of society. Reich thought “redemption could be found in the college hippie,” Alito said. Reich spent lots of time on the difficulties of legal practice, but little time on constitutional law, Alito said. “I was forced to teach myself.”

via Alito Defends Citizens United, Says Opponents’ Bumper Stickers Are Pithy but Misguided – News – ABA Journal.

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, legal decision, Supreme Court

Citizens United in MN Court (8th Circuit en banc)

Minnesota can ban corporations from contributing to political campaigns but its regulation of independent expenditures is unconstitutional, the full 8th Circuit ruled.

Unlike direct campaign contributions, which are illegal for corporations in Minnesota, an independent expenditure represents money that the corporation pays to advocate for the election or defeat of various candidates.

The state requires corporations making political contributions greater than $100 to form a separate political fund with an appointed treasurer. Corporate donors must also disclose contact information for its treasurer, and a list all depositories or safe deposit boxes used.

The laws regulate not just corporations but almost all associations, meaning a group of two or more people acting together, who are not all family members.

As long as the fund is in existence, the treasurer must file annual reports with the state election board detailing the fund’s activity.

During general election years, which happen every other year, the treasurer must file four additional reports, 28 and 15 days before a primary, and 42 and 10 days before a general election.

These requirements continue until the fund is dissolved. Before dissolution the treasurer has to pay all of the fund’s debts, dispose of all assets valued at more than $100 and file a termination report, including the same info required in the fund’s periodic reports.

With supporting documentation the treasurer has to keep track of all contributions over $20, and all the fund’s expenditures. For four years from the date of filing these disclosure reports the treasurer must maintain the fund’s records for state inspection.

Associations and treasurers that do not comply with the law are subject to criminal and civil penalties ranging from fines to up to five years imprisonment.

Even if the fund is inactive during a general election year it still has to file the five reports.

Three organizations – Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and Coastal Travel Enterprises – sued Minnesota to block the laws in July 2010.

After a federal judge refused to enjoin the laws, a split three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit affirmed last year.

The full St. Louis-based court then agreed to hear the case en banc and vacated the panel decision Wednesday.

A six-judge majority enjoined the political fund reporting requirements, and all 11 judges agreed that the ban on corporate campaign contributions can stand.

“Minnesota’s law hinders associations from participating in the political debate and limits their access to the citizenry and the government,” according to the majority opinion authored by Chief Judge William Riley. “The law manifestly discourages associations, particularly small associations with limited resources, from engaging in protected political speech.”

“We conclude Minnesota’s requirement that all associations make independent expenditures through an independent expenditure political fund … is most likely unconstitutional,” Riley added.

The judges noted that their decision on the ban law relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that it does not violate the First Amendment to make corporations use Political Action Committees if they wish to make direct political contributions.

Judge Michael Melloy authored a partial dissent on behalf of three other members of the panel. That 12-page opinion states that Minnesota’s disclosure laws are not overly burdensome, and the majority should have deferred to state lawmakers.

“Instead of deferring to the legislature, the majority would instead impose its own judgment to determine that a $100 threshold for requiring reporting is too low, that five disclosure reports in an election year are too many, and that the administrative costs of keeping records in accordance with the law are too high,” Malloy wrote. “These issues are typically and best left to Minnesota’s democratically elected legislators.”

Though Judge Steven Colloton said he echoed Melloy’s opinion, he wrote separately to fight the assertion that Minnesota’s disclosure laws are appropriate to prevent “improper or suspect relationships between elected officials and the persons or groups that support them.”

Colloton wrote that the statement contradicts the Citizens United holding that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

 

See the decision here.

via Courthouse News Service.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, courts, District Court, legal decision, Minnesota