Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), is touted as a landmark Supreme Court decision that was said to drastically change the landscape in American politics as we know it by extending the idea of corporate person-hood and by granting First Amendment rights to Corporations, see generally Citizens, 130 S. Ct 883-886. This decision was based partly on the idea that other means of corporate political expression, like creation of Political Action Committees (PAC’s), were unnecessary and overly burdensome. Thus, the Court paved the way for corporation to contribute general treasury funds directly into independent expenditures that expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for political office.
A recent District Court decision has upheld a Minnesota election disclosure law amended in direct response to the decision in Citizens United. The Plaintiff, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), challenged certain Minnesota statutes as being unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens. Minnesota Statutes §10A.12, 10A.01, 10A.27, and 21B.15; formerly prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures. See Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson, citation needed. These statutes were amended to allow independent expenditures so long as the corporation formed and registered “an independent expenditure political fund if the expenditure is in excess of $100 or contributing to an existing independent political expenditure committee or fund.” These independent political expenditure committees and funds were also required to make certain disclosures under Minnesota Law.
Besides requiring that each fund elect or appoint a treasure, the funds were required to file one report in non general election years and five reports during general election years. These reports required the disclosure of the amount of liquid assets at the beginning of the reporting period, the name and address of each individual who’s contributions exceeded $100, the amount and date of contributions, the sum of the contributions, loans received, the names and address of each individual or association whom the reporting entity made expenditures within the reporting period, and various other specific disclosures. See Minn. Stat. §10A.20.
MCCL wanted to make independent expenditures in excess of $100 to expressly advocate for and against specific candidates running in the general election taking place on November 2, 2010. In general, MCCL challenged the Minnesota statutes on the basis that the disclosure law was overly burdensome and thereby infringed upon the groups First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech.
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Minn. Statutes on the basis that the statutes did not require “PAC-style” accounts. The court stated that Minnesota law allows for the use of general treasury funds and states that unlike PAC’s, the funds are always under control of the corporation itself. The court continues to say that the requirements for independent expenditures are far less extensive than what is required by PAC under Federal law. The court bases their opinion largely on making subtle distinctions between PAC requirements and the Minnesota statutes, and by continually stating that corporate independent expenditures are explicitly allowed.
The Supreme Court in Citizens stated that forcing corporations to turn to PAC’s as a means of political speech was overly burdensome and a poor choice when compared to direct independent expenditures. Among other requirements, PAC’s require the appointment of a treasurer, detailed record keeping, the filing of organizational statements, and detailed reports containing information on receipts and expenditures. These are close to some of the very same requirements outlined in the Minnesota statutes allowing independent corporate expenditures.
This case is only a recently reported district court decision that may be placed under further judicial review before the upcoming Nov. 2 elections. Setting aside some of the general propositions made about the impact of Citizens due to its furtherance to the idea of corporate person hood, the Minnesota decision calls into question the importance of Kennedy’s discussion on the ineffectiveness of PAC’s in corporate speech. If a state legislature can require that corporations jump through some of the same procedural hoops and bear many of the same financial burdens when making their constitutionally protected independent expenditures as would be required if the corporation was forced to resort to use of a PAC, how effective was the court at achieving its stated purpose?
No comments:
Post a Comment