Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Argued October 31, 1989
Decided March 27, 1990
Full case name Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Citations

494 U.S. 652 (more)

110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371
Holding
The Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First or the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens
Concurrence Brennan
Concurrence Stevens
Dissent Scalia
Dissent Kennedy, joined by O'Connor, Scalia
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV
Overruled by
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010)

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) is a United States corporate law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech, stating, "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.

Background

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act banned corporations from spending treasury money on "independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices." The Act had one loophole-if a corporation had an independent fund solely used for political purposes the law did not apply. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce sought to use its general funds to publish an advertisement in a local newspaper to support a candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives,[1]

Opinion of the Court

Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, Michigan, argued on the side of the appellants (Austin). Richard D. McLellan, Lansing, Michigan, argued for the respondent (Michigan Chamber of Commerce).[2]

In an opinion by Justice Marshall, the Court recognized a state's compelling interest in combating a "different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas."

Justice Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and O'Connor.

The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[3]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerece". Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
  2. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2011-01-17.
  3. ↑ Hasen, Richard L. (2010-01-21). "Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform". Slate.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/21/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.