First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

In 1976 several corporations, including the First National Bank of Boston , were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum regarding tax policy and subsequently sued. The case was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in November 1977. On April 26, 1978, the Court ruled 5–4 against the Massachusetts law.

As a result of the ruling, states could no longer impose specific regulations on donations from corporations in ballot initiative campaigns. While the Bellotti decision did not directly affect federal law, it has been cited by other Supreme Court cases such as _McConnell v. FEC _ and _Citizens United v. FEC _.

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Corporate funds and federal elections

  • 1.2 Before the Massachusetts Supreme Court

• 2 Before the Supreme Court

• 3 Opinions of the Court

  • 3.1 Overview

  • 3.2 Majority opinion

  • 3.3 Concurrence

  • 3.4 Dissents

• 4 Further Supreme Court rulings

  • 4.1 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

  • 4.2 McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

  • 4.3 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

• 5 Effects on policy

  • 5.1 Effects on legislation

  • 5.2 Effects on referendums

• 6 Support and criticism

  • 6.1 Support

  • 6.2 Criticisms

• 7 References

• 8 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Corporate funds and federal elections

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Corporate funds and federal elections")

Since the early 1900s, federal law has prohibited the use of corporate funds to influence federal elections. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act , prohibiting corporations and national banks from contributing to federal campaigns.

Forty years later, the Taft-Hartley Act banned direct election contributions by labor unions and corporations to federal elections.

In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) initiated sweeping reforms by requiring full reporting of contributions to federal elections.

In 1974, amendments to the FECA created the Federal Election Commission and enacted stricter limits on election contributions and expenditures.

That same year, _Buckley v. Valeo _ challenged the 1974 FECA amendments in the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.

The Court, introducing the concept of spending money as a form of unrestricted political speech, overturned limits on campaign expenditures.

However, it upheld contribution limits because such limits served the government's interest in reducing election corruption.

Before the Massachusetts Supreme Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Before the Massachusetts Supreme Court")

In 1976, Massachusetts passed Massachusetts General Laws ch. 55 § 8, which expanded the 1974 FECA amendment's prohibitions.

The new criminal statute disallowed the use of "corporate funds to purchase advertising to influence the outcome of referendum elections, unless the corporation's business interests were directly involved."

That same year, Massachusetts proposed a constitutional amendment (to be voted upon in a referendum election) modifying income tax laws. The First National Bank of Boston , New England Merchants National Bank, the Gillette Co. , Digital Equipment Corp. , and Wyman-Gordon

claimed that this amendment affected their business interests and that they should be allowed to spend corporate funds on relevant advertising. The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, applying Massachusetts General Laws. ch. 55 § 8, disagreed.

In response, the corporations sued Massachusetts Attorney General Francis Bellotti , the Coalition for Tax Reform, and United Peoples, Inc., contending that Massachusetts General Law ch. 55 § 8 was unconstitutional because it violated their right to free speech. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts heard _The First Na

…