Bopp Urges Supreme Court to Permit Political Contributions by Citizen Groups.

On March 25, NRLC General Counsel James Bopp, Jr., urged the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize a constitutional right for citizen groups such as NRLC and its affiliates to make direct contributions to federal candidates. The case, FEC v. Beaumont, originated on January 3, 2000, when North Carolina Right to Life (NCRL) and associated individuals sued the Federal Election Commission, challenging certain FEC regulations and a statute that prohibits corporate contributions to candidates.

In response the federal district court, followed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, struck down both the FEC regulations and the statute. Building on a 1986 Supreme Court decision, the Fourth Circuit held that a ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates was unconstitutional as applied to corporations such as NCRL.

It decided that corporations like NCRL were not like business corporations, but were like individuals and associations, both of which are able to contribute up to $2,000 per election to a candidate.

The Beaumont decision was an extension of FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL). In that case the High Court 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.

In order to qualify as an MCFL-type corporation, the Supreme Court said, a non-profit corporation must (1) be formed to promote "political" (ideological) ideas and not engage in business activities, (2) have no shareholders or persons with a claim on its assets or earnings, and (3) not be established by a business corporation and accept no more than minimal contributions from business corporations. Therefore, the Court reasoned, people donate to support the corporation's issues, no stock-holders lose income, and no "war chests" of business money can skew political campaigns.

The First Amendment requires that laws limiting free expression and association be justified with strong state interests. Corruption (or the appearance of corruption) is the only interest recognized by the Supreme Court in the campaign finance area.

The High Court declared that corporations like MCFL posed no threat of corrupting the political system. If MCFL-type corporations pose no threat of corrupting the political system, then there is no justification to prohibit direct contributions by corporations like MCFL and ...