[EL] “Judge tosses Kentucky’s ban on corporate campaign donations”

[Rick Hasen]

    “Judge tosses Kentucky’s ban on corporate campaign donations”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81427>

Posted onApril 1, 2016 7:27 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81427>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

AP 
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/31/judge-issues-temporary-injunction-in-campaign-fina/>:

    A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky cannot bar a corporation
    from contributing to political campaigns while no such restrictions
    apply to other organizations such as labor unions.

    The ruling stems from the heated battle over “right-to-work”
    legislation in the state: the labor unions that oppose those
    measures are allowed to make political donations, while a non-profit
    corporation that promotes them is not.

I have not yet seen this opinion (if anyone has it please send it 
along), but it seems to conflict with the Supreme Court’s equal 
protection holding in /Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3609582225306729508&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>/, 
which rejected just such an argument because Michigan’s law (on 
expenditures) targeted corporations (though not media corporations) but 
not unions:

    Because we hold that § 54(1) does not violate the First Amendment,
    we must address the Chamber’s contention that the provision
    infringes its rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Chamber
    argues that the statute treats similarly situated entities
    unequally. Specifically, it contends that the State should also
    restrict the independent expenditures of unincorporated associations
    with the ability to accumulate large treasuries and of corporations
    engaged in the media business.

    Because the right to engage in political expression is fundamental
    to our constitutional system, statutory classifications impinging
    upon that right must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
    governmental interest./Police Department of Chicago/v./Mosley,/408
    U. S. 92, 101 (1972)
    <https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7757495192285749706&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1>.
    We find that, even under such strict scrutiny, the statute’s
    classifications pass muster under the Equal Protection Clause. As we
    explained in the context of our discussions of whether the statute
    was overinclusive,/supra,/at 660-661, or underinclusive,/supra,/at
    665 and this page, the State’s decision to regulate only
    corporations is precisely tailored to serve the compelling state
    interest of eliminating from the political process the corrosive
    effect of political “war chests” amassed with the aid of the legal
    advantages given to corporations.

Although a different aspect of /Austin/was overruled in /Citizens 
United/, I believe this aspect of the opinion remains good law.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81427&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%20tosses%20Kentucky%E2%80%99s%20ban%20on%20corporate%20campaign%20donations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160401/62cc7aed/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160401/62cc7aed/attachment.png>