Concurrence Brennan Dissent Scalia People also search for McConnell v. FEC | Concurrence Stevens End date 1990 | |
Full case name Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce Citations 494 U.S. 652 (more)
110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371 Majority Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens | ||
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) is a United States corporate law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech, stating, "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.
Contents
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 one loophole-if a corporation had an independent fund solely used for political purposes the law did not apply. 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
Louis J. Caruso, Lansing, Michigan, argued on the side of the appellants (Austin). Richard D. McLellan, Lansing, Michigan, argued for the respondent (Michigan Chamber of Commerce).
In an opinion by Justice Marshall, 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."
Justice Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and O'Connor.
The decision was overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010).