Alex Brandon/AP
Workers cover the US Supreme Court building in Washington Sept. 2012, with a protective scrim, as work continues on the facade. The Supreme Court turned away a campaign-finance case seeking to allow political contributions to candidates from corporations.

Campaign finance: Supreme Court declines case on contributions by corporations

A ban on contributions to candidates from corporations has been in effect since 1907. On Monday, the Supreme Court turned away a campaign-finance case seeking to allow such contributions.

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case testing whether a century-long ban on political contributions to candidates from corporations violates corporations’ freedom of speech.

The action came without comment by the justices.

At issue in the case was a section of federal election law that permits contributions of up to $2,500 from individuals, partnerships, and limited liability companies. But campaign-finance laws ban the same amount when coming from a corporate treasury.

The ban on corporate contributions to candidates has been in effect since 1907.

The case, Danielczyk v. United States (12-579), arose in the wake of the high court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled under the First Amendment to spend unlimited corporate money when making independent political expenditures during election season. The justices struck down a ban on such expenditures, saying that corporations enjoy free-speech rights just as individuals do.

Critics say the ruling opened the floodgates to independent expenditures by advocacy groups organized as corporations, drowning federal elections in massive amounts of corporate money that has funded a blitz of independent political advertisements.

In Danielczyk v. US, lawyers had sought to extend the Citizens United decision to lift a ban on corporate contributions to candidates.

The issue arose in a case filed against two corporate officers who allegedly sought to channel funds from their company to support Hillary Rodham Clinton during both her reelection campaign in the Senate and her unsuccessful run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi were officers of Galen Capital Group and Galen Capital Corp., both of Nevada. According to briefs in the case, the men hosted fundraisers for Mrs. Clinton in 2006 and 2007.

Mr. Danielczyk asked his employees to attend the fundraisers and assured them that they would be reimbursed for the amounts they contributed to the Clinton campaign, according to the indictment.

The indictment charges that the employees served as “straw donors” who were reimbursed $156,400 in corporation funds for their contributions to the Clinton campaign. The corporate officials listed the repayments to their employees as consulting fees. The repayments to the staff were slightly larger than the amount of the political contributions.

The Clinton campaign was unaware of the scheme, according to the government’s brief. Clinton campaign officials reported the funds as legitimate contributions.

After Danielczyk was charged in a seven-count indictment, his lawyer challenged one of the counts that accused him of knowingly contributing corporate money to a political campaign.  

The lawyer argued that the ban on corporate contributions was unconstitutional in the wake of the high court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

A federal judge agreed, ruling that if a $2,500 contribution given by an individual was not a source of corruption, then a similar $2,500 contribution given by a corporation could also not be a source of corruption.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. The appeals court said that other, earlier campaign-finance precedents that were not overruled in the Citizens United case were still binding law that upholds the ban on corporate contributions.

The high court action – declining to take up the case –allows the Fourth Circuit decision to stand.

US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urged the justices to reject the petition for review. “[T]he century-long ban on corporate-treasury contributions is a fundamental feature of campaign-finance regulation, and its approval by this Court should not be revisited,” Mr. Verrilli wrote in his brief.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Campaign finance: Supreme Court declines case on contributions by corporations
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today