Campaign Finance and Other Political Campaign Regulations
The regulation of political campaigns has led to numerous Supreme Court rulings involving free speech rights. Issues have included ballot access, rights of political parties, electioneering and what can be said during a campaign, campaign disclosure requirements and contribution limits.
Following is a list of Supreme Court cases involving political campaign regulations and campaign finance.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011) struck
down on First Amendment grounds a law that sought to reduce corruption in
Arizona elections.
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld against a First
Amendment challenge a law prohibiting nonprofit corporations from using
general revenues for politics.
Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982) said the First
Amendment prohibits states from forcing minor political parties to reveal
contributors’ names.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) said limits on campaign contributions did not
violate the First Amendment freedom of expression, but limits on campaign
spending were unconstitutional.
Cammarano v. United States (1959) said businesses cannot deduct from their
taxes money spent to influence legislation. The Court said the law did not
violate the First Amendment.
Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (1981) said no compelling
interest exists for restricting First Amendment rights of those donating to
defeat or pass a ballot measure.
In a landmark 2010 decision, a divided Supreme Court used the First
Amendment to invalidate a campaign regulation that banned corporate and
union spending in political elections.
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election
Commission (1996) said a law that limited independent campaign expenditures
ran afoul of the First Amendment.
Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008) struck down the “Millionaire’s
Amendment” of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for violating the First
Amendment.
The court did not grant certiorari in Delaware Strong Families v. Penn
(2016), which dealt with campaign disclosure and First Amendment anonymity
rights.
FEC v. Beaumont (2003) said laws barring corporations’ direct candidate
contributions do not violate the First Amendment rights of nonprofit
advocacy groups.
FEC v. CO Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld limits on
parties’ direct candidate contributions but confirmed the First Amendment
right to independent expenditures.
The Supreme Court overturned a regulation that limited how a campaign could
repay a candidate’s personal loan saying in Federal Election Commission v.
Cruz that the law violated the First Amendment by overburdening free speech.
FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) found that while a nonprofit
corporation violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, its application
violated the First Amendment.
In Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative PAC (1985), the
Court said that a ban on certain independent PAC spending violated the
First Amendment.
FEC v. National Right to Work Committee (1982) upheld regulations on PAC
contributions solicited by corporations and said the regulations outweighed
certain First Amendment rights.
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) ruled that part of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment as applied to
certain forms of political speech.
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) ruled that a state
restriction on political contributions by corporations violated the First
Amendment.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld major provisions of
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, rejecting claims that the act
stifled First Amendment rights.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) invalidated some campaign regulations that imposed
limits on political contributions. The Court said the regulations directly
limited political speech.
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Court ruled that an
Ohio statute requiring author identification on election-related
publications violated the First Amendment.
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011) determined that a recusal
provision did not violate a city council’s First Amendment free-speech
rights.
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) concluded that Missouri’s
political contribution limits did not infringe on First Amendment rights of
free speech and association.
Randall v. Sorrell (2006) said that Vermont’s spending and contribution
limits infringed upon the First Amendment’s right to free speech and
threatened freedom of association.
The U.S. Supreme Court in November 2019 vacated a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruling that had upheld an Alaska state law limiting campaign
contributions. The Court in its per curiam decision instructed the 9th
Circuit to consider its decision in a 2006 case in which the Supreme Court
invalidated a similar Vermont law limiting contributions.
In 1957, the Supreme Court held that the use of general union treasury
funds to sponsor commercial television broadcasts touting 1954
congressional candidates was an indictable offense under 18 U.S.C. 610,
which banned corporate or labor contributions or expenditures in federal
campaigns.
United States v. CIO (1948), which involved an indictment against a union
for its periodical, said the law in question was not intended to infringe
upon First Amendment freedoms.
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015) said a rule prohibiting judicial
candidates from soliciting money for their campaign did not violate the
First Amendment.
