What did the Supreme Court rule in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce 1990?

Summary. On March 27, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that a Michigan state law prohibiting independent expenditures by corporations was constitutional.

In which case did the Supreme Court overturn a ban on unlimited independent expenditures made by corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations in federal elections?

Summary. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce)

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1990 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce **

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance regulations. Thurgood Marshall 's majority opinion held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which burdened political speech by prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, was appropriately justified by a compelling state interest so as to overcome a First Amendment challenge. The court also found no Fourteenth Amendment violation, stating that Congress could treat press corporations and nonpress corporations differently without violating the Equal Protection Clause . Upholding the restriction on corporate political speech, the court stated that "corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections". The Michigan law, however, continued to allow corporations to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: 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 a deliberate loophole—that if a corporation had an independent fund solely used for political purposes, the law did not apply to the money spent from that fund. 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 .

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

The appellants were represented before the court by Louis J. Caruso, while the respondent Michigan Chamber of Commerce was represented by Richard D. McLellan .

Thurgood Marshall 's majority opinion held that the act did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments . The Court 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."

Marshall concluded by noting the importance of the act:

Michigan identified as a serious danger the significant possibility that corporate political expenditures will undermine the integrity of the political process, and it has implemented a narrowly tailored solution to that problem. By requiring corporations to make all independent political expenditures through a separate fund made up of money solicited expressly for political purposes, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act reduces the threat that huge corporate treasuries amassed with the aid of favorable state laws will be used to influence unfairly the outcome of elections.

Marshall was joined in the majority by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices William Brennan , Byron White , Harry Blackmun , and John Paul Stevens . Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor .

Subsequent developments

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Subsequent developments")
]

The decision was overruled by the 2010 Supreme Court case _Citizens United v. FEC _, ruling that the First Amendment right of free speech applied to corporations.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerece" . Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved January 27, 2014.
↑ "494 U.S. 652" . Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved January 17, 2011.
↑ Overruled, Citizens United 558 US 310 at 366; See also, McConnell, 540 US 93 at 205
↑ Hasen, Richard L. (January 21, 2010). "Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform" . Slate.
↑ Ryan, Daniel P. (2010). "Citizens United, Austin, and the Unconstitutionality of MCL Section 169.254(1)". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2112556 . {{[cite journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal "Template:Cite journal") }}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help )