AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
On November 18, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Beaumont v. FEC, a case vital to citizen groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and its affiliates. The outcome will define what role these advocacy groups will play in public life.
Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit appellate court held in Beaumont that a ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates was unconstitutional as applied to corporations such as North Carolina Right to Life (a Beaumont plaintiff). The appellate court's decision built on the Supreme Court's FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) decision.
That 1986 case decided that MCFL-type corporations could make "independent expenditures" -- expenditures made for communications not coordinated with candidates but containing explicit words that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. The Supreme Court held that MCFL-type corporations posed no threat of "corrupting" the political process because they (1) have no substantial profit-making activity, (2) have no shareholders or others with a claim on the corporation's assets and earnings, (3) are exempt from federal income taxation, and (4) are funded overwhelmingly by donations from individuals.
Therefore, the Supreme Court reasoned, people donate to support the corporation's issues, no stockholders lose income, and no "war chests" of business money can skew political campaigns.
The Fourth Circuit extended that reasoning. If MCFL-type corporations pose no threat of corrupting the political system, then there is no justification to ban them from making direct contributions to candidates.
The underlying issue in Beaumont is whether the High Court will continue to find that MCFL-type corporations do ...