After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that companies can spend freely on political advertising campaigns, the immediate reaction from some quarters was dire. Good-government advocates, liberal commentators, even the president warned that a flood of corporate money would overwhelm elections and subvert democracy. But the real impact of the decision is likely to be much less extreme, according to in-house attorneys and election law experts. Few companies are looking for new ways to spend money in these tight times. Plus, many businesses—especially large corporations—are aware of the dangers of appearing excessively partisan.
In its January 21 decision in Citizens United, the Court said that companies can spend as much as they wish on “independent expenditures”—that is, on political ads that aren’t coordinated with candidates’ own campaigns. The 5-to-4 majority based its ruling on the proposition that corporations enjoy many of the same rights as individuals, including First Amendment freedoms. The decision doesn’t change the federal rules that govern direct contributions to candidates; companies are still limited in how much they can donate. The Court also left disclosure rules undisturbed, meaning that companies that advertise for or against a candidate will still have to disclose their involvement.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
