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 | |||||
|
|||||
| 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 | |||||
| First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution | |||||
|
Overruled by
|
|||||
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) | |||||
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held 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 "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections," and 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]
Decision of the Supreme Court
Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, Michigan, argued on the side of the appellants (Austin). Richard D. McLellan, Lansing, Michigan, for respondent (Michigan Chamber of Commerce).[2]
The case 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."
Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented.
The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).[3]
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 494
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
- Appearance of corruption
References
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/494/494.US.652.88-1569.html
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
External links
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
