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

[Rick Hasen]

Opinion: 
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Protect-My-Check-v.-Dilger-EDKY.pdf


On 4/1/16 9:43 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     “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

-- 
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/20160401/1e5dd127/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160401/1e5dd127/attachment.png>