First Amendment - Campaign Finance Contributions - Fourth Circuit Holds That Ban on Corporate Direct Contributions Does Not Violate First Amendment

Harvard Law Review, April 2013 | Go to article overview

First Amendment - Campaign Finance Contributions - Fourth Circuit Holds That Ban on Corporate Direct Contributions Does Not Violate First Amendment


The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, (1) ruling that the First Amendment prohibits restricting corporations' independent political expenditures, (2) has deeply shaken the campaign finance landscape. Among the regulations potentially threatened by the Court's reasoning is the federal ban on corporate direct contributions to candidates. (3) Recently, in United States v. Danielczyk, ?(4) the Fourth Circuit held that the ban remains constitutional. (5) This decision was correct under the principle of Agostini v. Felton, (6) which provides that only the Supreme Court can overrule its own decisions. (7) However, it allowed the Fourth Circuit to avoid important questions about the extent to which Citizens United's antidiscrimination principle (8)--which bars speaker discrimination based on corporate form--has undermined relevant Supreme Court precedent.

Modern campaign finance jurisprudence began with Buckley v. Valeo, (9) in which the Supreme Court upheld limits on individuals' direct campaign contributions but struck down limits on their independent political expenditures, (10) finding that the latter "impose[d] significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms." (11) Later, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, (12) the Court struck down a statute banning corporate spending to influence ballot initiatives. (13) In Citizens United, the Supreme Court reasoned that since Buckley protected independent expenditures, and Bellotti stood for the proposition that otherwise protected speech could not be regulated simply because it had a corporate source, limits on corporate independent expenditures were unconstitutional. (14) The Court also rejected several of the social interests it had previously held sufficient to justify restrictions on corporate speech: countering the distorting influence of corporate wealth on the political process; (15) protecting shareholders with opposing views; (16) and preventing the threat or appearance of corruption based on favoritism short of quid pro quo deal making. (17) Nonetheless, the Court explicitly declined to address the statutory ban on corporate direct contributions, which it had previously upheld in FEC v. Beaumont, (18) noting that Citizens United did not present that issue. (19)

The Fourth Circuit encountered that issue two years later. William P. Danielczyk, Jr., was the chairman of Galen Capital Corporation. (20) In 2007, Danielczyk cohosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. (21) Danielczyk and another Galen officer allegedly had Galen reimburse attendees for $156,400 in campaign donations. (22) In 2011, both were charged with illegally soliciting and reimbursing campaign contributions in violation of several federal statutes, including 2 U.S.C. [section] 441b(a), which bans corporate direct contributions to candidates for federal office. (23) The defendants filed motions to dismiss on several grounds, including that Citizens United rendered [section] 441b(a) unconstitutional as applied to them. (24)

The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the charge arising from [section] 441b(a), holding the statute's ban on corporate direct contributions unconstitutional. (25) The court found the logic of Citizens United "inescapable here" (26): because Buckley implicitly found that direct contributions within statutory limits, like independent expenditures, do not create corruption or its appearance, there was no permissible basis to ban such corporate contributions. (27) While Citizens United did reaffirm Buckley's concern with quid pro quo corruption, a statute that flatly bans corporations from making the same direct donations individuals can make (28) could not withstand Citizens United's declaration that "the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on the speaker's corporate identity." (29)

Five days later, facing criticism for failing to consider Beaumont, (30) the district court requested additional briefing and argument. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

First Amendment - Campaign Finance Contributions - Fourth Circuit Holds That Ban on Corporate Direct Contributions Does Not Violate First Amendment
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.