Laws and Court decisions regarding campaign finance,
corporate personhood and campaign spending
A brief history ...
Also, a useful Wikipedia article: Campaign Finance Reform in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
1819 - Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Supreme Court says corporations have the same rights as
natural persons to enter into contracts and to enforce contracts.
1886 - Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Supreme Court seems to recognize
corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. But this is due to an
insertion into the decision's headnotes by the clerk - not part of the formal decision ruling.
1907 - Tillman Act, prohibited corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks from making
direct financial contributions to federal candidates. Weak enforcement made the Act ineffective.
1910 - Federal Corrupt Practices Act, remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance
in federal elections until the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Amendments in 1925 set
reporting requirements and campaign spending limits for political parties and election committees.
1947 - Taft-Hartley Act, prohibited corporate (and union) spending on independent electioneering.
1970's - The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources
of campaign contributions and campaign expenditures.
1974 - Fueled by Watergate scandal concerns, FECA is amended with statutory limits on
contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
1976 - Buckley v. Valeo. Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign expenditures on the basis
that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. But
Court upholds federal law which sets limits on campaign contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
2006 - Randall v. Sorrell. Supreme Court rules that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on
spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo. The Court also struck
down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever
struck down a contribution limit.
2007 - Wisconsin Right to Life v. F.E.C. Supreme Court established a broad exemption (from McCainFeingold law limiting broadcast ads that mention a candidate within 60 days of an election) for any
"issues" ad that could reasonably be interpreted as an ad about legislative issues.
2008 - Davis v. F.E.C. Supreme Court strikes down "Millionaire's Amendment" portion of McCainFeingold (BCRA) law, stating: the “goal of ‘leveling’ electoral opportunities does not justify a
campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to
finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive
context of electoral politics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v._Federal_Election_Commission
2011 - McComish v. Bennett. Supreme Court declares matching ("rescue") funds in Arizona's Clean
Elections program to be unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McComish_v._Bennett
___________________________________________________________________________________
Brief History: Court rulings re: Campaign Finance Reform. Compiled by Washclean.org, 4-2012 Page 1
2010 - Citizens United v. F.E.C. Essentially, the Court rules that corporate entities enjoy free speech
protection regarding political spending. Therefore:
 Strikes down laws or rules that prohibit corporations and unions from spending treasury money
on ads that advocate electing or defeating candidates for president or Congress but are
produced independently and not coordinated with the candidate's campaign;
 strikes down the prohibition in BCRA that prohibits issue-oriented ads paid for by corporations or
unions 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
 Upholds the ban on donations by corporations from their treasuries directly to candidates - on
the basis to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof.
 Upholds the ability of corporations, unions or individuals to set up PACs that can contribute
directly to candidates but can only accept voluntary contributions from employees, members and
others and cannot use money directly from corporate or union treasuries;
 Upholds the McCain-Feingold provision that anyone spending money on political ads must
disclose the names of contributors.
2010 - SpeechNow v. F.E.C. Court of Appeals (D.C. District) rules that contributions to organizations
for electioneering communications cannot be limited or restricted. Court reasoning: “Contributions
to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of
corruption.” In effect, this ruling allows the creation of independent-expenditure only committees,
commonly known as Super PACs.
However, reporting (disclosure) requirements of McCain-Feingold law are upheld and do apply.
http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml
2012 - Montana's Corrupt Practices Act (of 1912) upheld by Montana's state supreme court.
But the state court ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a stay
(blocking enforcement of the act in Montana until further review), and the Court may accept the
appeal during the 2012-2013 term (not yet decided), and thereby perhaps revisit the Citizens
United decision.
News report: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/opinion/montana-and-the-supreme-court.html
__________________________________________________
Summary Provisions of BCRA Law (McCain-Feingold, 2002) - prior to Supreme Court rulings:

Prohibits direct contributions to candidates by corporations and unions using general treasury
funds;

Prohibits independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a
candidate through any form of media - in connection with certain qualified federal elections.

BCRA Sec.203, as amended - Prohibits electioneering communication as well, defined as
broadcast, cable or satellite communication that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for
Federal office" - made within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election.

However, corporations or unions may establish a "separate segregated fund" (PAC) for these
purposes. Moneys received are limited to donations from corp stockholders and employees, or
in the case of unions, members of the union.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Brief History: Court rulings re: Campaign Finance Reform. Compiled by Washclean.org, 4-2012 Page 2