Federal Judge Rejects Contractors' Request To Lift Political Aid Ban, Bucking Citizens United Trend

WASHINGTON -- A judge has turned aside a request to temporarily lift a long-standing ban on contributions by federal contractors to political campaigns.

Federal contractors have been prohibited for more than 70 years from donating to candidates, political committees and parties in federal elections.

In a lawsuit, three federal contractors allege that the ban violates freedom of speech.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg rejected the contractors' request that the Federal Election Commission be barred from enforcing the ban until the judge issues a final ruling in the case.

In rejecting the request for a preliminary injunction, Boasberg said it is well established that preventing even the appearance of corruption is an important government interest justifying restrictions on political giving.

The ruling by Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, comes at a time when campaign finance restrictions are increasingly the focus of challenges. In one high-profile case, Citizens United, the Supreme Court gave a green light for corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited sums of their cash on campaign ads. That effectively led to the expansion of "super" political action committees, which have spent more than $50 million on the Republican primary elections and are largely funded by wealthy donors.

The law banning contractor donations is designed to guard against pay-to-play arrangements: People seeking contracts providing money to political candidates in exchange for help getting government business. The law also is intended to protect contractors from pressure to contribute or risk losing government business. Violating the law can result in a five-year prison term.

Congress passed the ban in the aftermath of scandals involving federal contractors.

Two of the contractors in the current case work for the U.S. Agency for International Development. The third works for the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency dedicated to improving the administrative process in government.

Boasberg issued his ruling Monday.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[plaidsportcoat]

12:48 PM on 04/19/2012

I betcha a buncha money that this is all going towards churches claiming that their right to freedom of speech is violated by not being allowed to contribute.

[3x]

01:16 PM on 04/19/2012

Churches already have the right to contribute.

They just can't do so if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status.

[litespeedrider]

10:13 AM on 04/19/2012

We'll be even more of a corporatocracy (sp?).

[3x]

07:29 PM on 04/19/2012

Maybe you should learn to spell the lame slogan before you sling it.

[caseyhd]

10:08 AM on 04/19/2012

Well the SCOTUS sure opened up Pandora's box with the Citzen's United ruling did they not.

[Jpl100]

11:07 AM on 04/19/2012

Only if you can't read and understand Supreme Court opinons, which perhaps Judge Boasberg can't.

Fortunately, Appelate Courts can.

[3x]

11:18 AM on 04/19/2012

Um, did you even read the headline?

Not that this case has anything to do with Citizen's United anyway.

[caseyhd]

11:24 AM on 04/19/2012

Yes and you can count on this too being appealed to the SCOTUS.

[caseyhd]

11:24 AM on 04/19/2012

And yes it has everything to do with CU.

[Bklein153]

10:06 AM on 04/19/2012

This will be overturned

[kdraper]

09:40 AM on 04/19/2012

Halliburton come immediately to mind. Corporations didn't get all they wanted with Citizens United and they are trying to clean up the loose ends. When you open the door, the floodwaters begin!

[3x]

09:15 AM on 04/19/2012

For the love of God, this has NOTHING to do with Citizen's United!

This is about CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. The limits on those are still in place after Citizen's United.

Citizen's United was about SPENDING by independent parties on speech about candidates, not donating the money to candidates.

The lack of irresponsible journalism on this matter has been stunning.

[DoubleYellowLines]

10:01 AM on 04/19/2012

I disagree.

"Federal contractors have been prohibited for more than 70 years from donating to candidates, political committees and parties in federal elections."

PAC stands for...

I think that if this were to hit the SCOTUS, it would be overturned, and it would therefore open the floodgates - to contributions to politicians, to PACs, to SuperPACs, etc. Because the imperative part of the 1st Amendment is "Congress shall make no law..." - the one option here is that the influence issue may override the imperative in the Amendment in the interests of America. But it will end up being a very narrow ruling.

[3x]

10:28 AM on 04/19/2012

You are completely mistaken.

Contributions to candidates, including contributions to or from PACs, is still regulated as before. The CU decision didn't change any of that.

SUPER PACs are not the same thing. Unfortunately, they have a confusing name. Super PACs don't give money to candidates. That is why donations to them are also unregulated.

[priceofliberty]

10:21 AM on 04/19/2012

It doesn't because the judge chose to see that Citizen's United was limited in scope. So now this decision is part of the case law. It wasn't before.

That doesn't make this irresponsible. There have been a lot of judges that thought the opposite, which is why there have been 2 cases that have used Citizen's United that have made it to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been wishy washy on their own decision. I don't know which way they'll go if it gets there.

[3x]

10:31 AM on 04/19/2012

I was talking about irresponsible journalists who make connections that aren't there.

[mbi11]

08:47 AM on 04/19/2012

This is something just about everyone can understand as a near bribe to allow government contractors to make political contributions. I would be interest in hearing how it fits in with the grand scheme of the Supreme Court in unlimited contributions from corporations? Free speech has limits just like screaming fire in a theater, but the Court in it's extreme has set the wrong line if it allows it.

[3x]

09:16 AM on 04/19/2012

The court did NOT allow unlimited contributions from corporations! Corporate donations are still banned (and donations from their PACs are still limited to $5,000 per election).

Citizens United had nothing to do with donations to candidates.

[Dev Austin]

09:21 AM on 04/19/2012

Not directly...but in the end it is actually a donation to a candidate.

[DoubleYellowLines]

10:02 AM on 04/19/2012

So as long as my left hand doesn't know what my right hand is doing...

[Alux]

09:25 AM on 04/19/2012

In what way, in your opinion, are Public unions different?

[3x]

11:21 AM on 04/19/2012

Unions, like corporations, also are banned by law from making donations to candidates.

Like corporations, they can sponsor PACs to use voluntarily donated money for donations, which are limited to $5,000.

So they aren't really any different.

[randallavery]

08:03 AM on 04/19/2012

http://www.votesmart.org/

This link is for everyone, we like to pretend we know the issues and know our candidates, but it's obvious very few do and even less understand, so if we're going to vote, let's least understand what it is that we're voting for.

[vicla1942]

07:49 AM on 04/19/2012

We need a constitutional amendment that allows for a direct referendum
that requires 51% voter support and a presidential signature :
VOTE ON::
1- The United decision
2- congress accepting lobbyist money
3- balanced budget amendment
4- limit campaign financing contributions to$ 200
5- term limits
Congress will not let the people vote for change because that would
stop them from robbing us blind.

[3x]

09:17 AM on 04/19/2012

I fear someone who thinks the Bill of Rights is an impediment to their goals and should be rolled back.

[Alux]

09:27 AM on 04/19/2012

A constitutional amendment would affect also the Bill of Rights.

Which part of vicia1942's suggestions rolls back the Bill of Rights?

[vicla1942]

01:43 PM on 04/19/2012

limit the referendums to government functions,no civil rights etc.
Supreme ct cases , rules of congress checks on government.

[Alux]

09:26 AM on 04/19/2012

Now THAT's change I could believe in!

[WakeUp2021]

07:46 AM on 04/19/2012

Why not just have unelected republican judges pick the President?

Oh we already did...

[dennidus1680]

08:30 AM on 04/19/2012

And boy did we get buyers remorse, even if we didn't buy in the first place.

[kathy smelser]

07:42 AM on 04/19/2012

i wonder ...is it likely that they all ready give large amounts of money but do it through a 3rd party

[SocratesSiddhartha]

07:16 AM on 04/19/2012

The most corrupt SCOTUS in history, destroying our nation one Far Rightwingruling at a time...

[accmiller]

07:36 AM on 04/19/2012

So now people are corrupt when they disagree with "progressive" thought?

What a wonderful, open-minded way of thought.

[WakeUp2021]

07:43 AM on 04/19/2012

No people are corrupt when they commit t.reason like the republican supreme court.

[SocratesSiddhartha]

07:52 AM on 04/19/2012

So simplistic and disingenuous of you to draw that conclusion.

[dennidus1680]

08:36 AM on 04/19/2012

It has been instructive how they turn the constitution on it's head, as a means of interpreting it. I would like to read in the constitution where the Supreme Court get the power to elect a president by halting a state's right with regard to it's own elections, to declare that corporations are citizens or money is free speech. It's interesting that out of the other side of their collective mouths they can find torture victims can't sue their torturers because the entity isn't a person or a recognized country.

[3x]

11:25 AM on 04/19/2012

When there is a dispute over law or the Constitution, someone sues and the courts decide. Pretty simple concept.

[pinetarred]

06:44 AM on 04/19/2012

Another Freedom to Purchase American tax dollars...It's becoming an avalance of corruption!

[3x]

09:18 AM on 04/19/2012

Um, this court ruled IN YOUR FAVOR, dude.

Proof that the knee-jerk commenters don't even bother to read the articles, let alone understand them.

[Ed Red]

06:22 AM on 04/19/2012

No news here a big 0 appointee who does not believe in Constitution or rule of law. This is just the norm.

[WakeUp2021]

07:45 AM on 04/19/2012

Obama appointed Unc1e Clarence Tom?

[Alux]

09:31 AM on 04/19/2012

Your racist remarks have no place on HuffPo, KKKer.

[DoubleYellowLines]

10:19 AM on 04/19/2012

How so? There are legitimate reasons for some curbs on free speech (as with gun possession, and every other 'right' that we have). These are not global curbs, but limited ones. In this case, there's a legitimate concern of corruption that CitU did NOT find in the general populace (and I may disagree with that, but that's the difference here).

The SCOTUS may kill this law as well (I'd put the odds in favor of that happening, but it's a higher hurdle than was used for CitU)... but it's fully within the jurisdiction of this judge to make this call.

[Runnemede]

05:18 AM on 04/19/2012

Citizens United evens the playing field.

[My Mate Pat]

08:05 AM on 04/19/2012

Everyone's dollar buys as much influence as everyone elses. If you want more influence you simply have to pay more. That's fair - it's not as if there is any issue of wealth inequality hanging out there or anything.

[priceofliberty]

10:43 AM on 04/19/2012

For who? for corporations that already had a lot of influence?

Now if a corporation gets a right a person has but also has to pay the same penalty that a person would for violating the law then I might agree.

When a corporation is jailed then we can talk. I wonder how you'd do that? Tell everyone that works for them that everything is frozen and it can no longer do anything until the sentence has passed?

[3x]

11:27 AM on 04/19/2012

Sigh.

Of course groups have rights too. Do you think, for instance, that political parties have no free speech, or churches have no right to religious freedom? They're not people either.

The First Amendment protects speech. The source of the speech doesn't matter. The government may not oppress speech, period.

The people will decide what speech to believe, not you and not the government.