Campaign Finance Ruling Inappropriately Attempts to Overrule Supreme Court Decision

A federal district court judge in Alexandria, Virginia issued an opinion yesterday ruling that the ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates enacted in 1907 is unconstitutional. The ruling was issued in United States v. William Danielczyk, Jr, et al.

Less than a decade ago, the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont (2003) explicitly upheld the constitutionality of the corporate contribution ban at issue in the district court case.

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), furthermore, that struck down the ban on independent corporate expenditures made clear that the opinion dealt only with corporate "expenditures" and not with contributions.

This leaves the Beaumont decision standing as existing Supreme Court doctrine, a decision that the district court judge conveniently ignores.

On May 16, 2011, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson issued an opinion that correctly upheld the constitutionality of a corporate contribution ban based on the Supreme Court decision in the Beaumont case.

Federal district courts cannot overrule Supreme Court decisions, as the district court judge in this case is attempting to do.

The district court judge in this case does not have the authority to overrule the United States Supreme Court.

The district court opinion should be appealed and reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Follow Fred Wertheimer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FredWertheimer

Comments

[laurieanichols]

08:12 AM on 05/30/2011

Since the Citizens United ruling is perhaps the most odious ruling this nation has ever seen, deeming that corporations has similar rights as the individual, anything that will contain the damage any further is welcome. The wording is explicit, only expenditures, not donations, and in the world of law wording is everything. The more specific a ruling is, the more limited are the parameters that surround the ruling. In my opinion, anything that can weaken the ability of corporations to directly impact elections financially is a boon for us as a society.

[MrStat1]

10:07 AM on 05/29/2011

The Supreme Court will make that determination, not this guy!

[Geauterre]

11:16 PM on 05/28/2011

When SCOTUS rules in favor of corporations against the needs of citizens, it alters the playing field to such a degree that war is declared between those who have, and those who want to protect what they have left. In short, justice is up for grabs, and law and order is on the auction block.

[avanteguard]

08:09 PM on 05/28/2011

This decision was exactly correct as it somewhat catches corps up to the power that the unions have had for so long in politics!

[Helloise]

10:35 PM on 05/28/2011

Excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. If unions had a fraction of the money or power of corporations the conservative junta on SCOTUS would never have rules in favor of Citizens Divided.

[avanteguard]

10:27 AM on 05/30/2011

Actually the unions have much more power as they show time and time again not only voting by the millions in one direction, and thus influencing elections, but also in their ability to directy give more money DIRECTLY to the candidates, and back that money with votes.....while a corp can only bring a very few votes to the table.

[josie klapper]

11:58 AM on 05/28/2011

In light of the most recent president, Citizens United, while itself right up there with the Dred Scott and Hardwick decisions, I do not see how the case in question can be considered an attempt to overrule a SCOTUS decision...

[LeftRight]

02:59 PM on 05/28/2011

Because Citizen's United SPECIFICALLY excluded contributions, but allowed expenditures. Meaning that they cannot donate directly to candidates, but they CAN spend money ON BEHALF of a candidate, so long as they aren't working with the candidate on the nature of their expenditures...

[Phreejazz]

11:41 PM on 05/28/2011

C.U. didn't touch the ban on contributions. This judge knows it, too... he's forcing the issue. Not sure what his previous rulings have been like, but he may be trying to get the SCOTUS to re-visit the ban.

[Zack B]

11:10 AM on 05/28/2011

If the supreme court can elect a president [bush v. gore], then its seems that a lower court can overrule the supreme court

[samtee]

08:02 PM on 05/28/2011

They didn't the votes did.

[smoke1]

12:09 AM on 05/29/2011

Then why did it go to court if votes elected him?Clear as mud right?

[LeftRight]

08:18 AM on 05/29/2011

No the votes did not. The SCOTUS STOPPED the recount right after Bush seemed to be leading, then HELD the count at that point until 10 PM on the night that Florida was REQUIRED to certify its count by its own law. Furthermore, the media descended on Florida in the year after, and EVERY news organization (besides Fox....) found that Gore WON!!

Call your proctologist, your head is getting farther up there!

[CenterMod]

10:29 AM on 05/28/2011

Just reading parts of the district court decision, it appears that the judge is inviting a review of the "corporate citizenship" issue. Or at least highlighting the debate. Unfortunately, most of us know how the SCOTUS would vote now: in favor of big corporate money.

[Phreejazz]

11:42 PM on 05/28/2011

I was thinking the exact same thing. Bad SCOTUS bench to do it with, but forcing issues like this has had good results: like Brown.

[CenterMod]

10:16 AM on 05/30/2011

True enough. But if the current court has its way, the results will last for years. And I'm not optimistic they'll be good. Brown overturned a previously bad decision (viewed in today's context), but the makeup of the court had to change to do it. Where are the visionaries of past courts: Holmes, Marshall (both Thurgood and John), Frankfurter. How can people like Thomas, Alito and Roberts even share the same bench? I'll give a pass to Scalia, even though I don't like his politics, at least he has an up-front theoretical basis for his decisions. The rest are just short-sighted, politically-driven opportunists.

[aacme]

10:05 AM on 05/28/2011

Well hey. If this works, we should go after Citizens United itself.

[josie klapper]

11:59 AM on 05/28/2011

Becareful what you wish for. It took a civil war to override Dred Scott...

[aacme]

07:11 PM on 06/02/2011

Funny you should mention it. What Citizens United did away with was what the Revolutionary War was fought for. Is it still worth it?

[alafonse]

09:43 AM on 05/28/2011

I believe that if this interim court ruling goes back to the Supremes, they'll stand with it. The court has obviously been bought out by big business, just like the congress.
=======
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

[edgarcaycedoc]

06:33 PM on 05/28/2011

P. J. O'Rourke . . . one of my favorite comedians - - since George Carlin died.

[alafonse]

07:35 AM on 05/29/2011

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
---George Carline

[SeanMartin]

08:24 AM on 05/28/2011

And when the SCOTUS ruling was passed back in the 90s,l corporations werent "citizens". I guess that makes all the dif now.

[Cogburn]

10:46 AM on 05/28/2011

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[SeanMartin]

11:47 AM on 05/28/2011

Sadly for you, because you cant think any further than a USAToday article length, I do.

[Phreejazz]

11:47 PM on 05/28/2011

Hmm. Actually, the SCOTUS has deemed corporations as protected to some extent under the 14th Amendment since 1886 and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company... all based on a random bit of dicta that should have never been recorded as part of the decision.

CU, however, badly twisted previous holdings re: corporations and free speech, and performed some painful legal yoga re: corporations as associations to come to a terrible decision.

[banana republican]

07:01 AM on 05/28/2011

The author defines 'correct' judicial decisions as those that support the Left's agenda. The author would support the right of trial lawyers and unions to make contributions, but not corporations.as if they (lawyers/unions) should have exclusive rights to shape the government.

[aacme]

10:07 AM on 05/28/2011

On what writings of the author do you base that opinion?

[CenterMod]

10:26 AM on 05/28/2011

Don't see how you reach that conclusion at all.

[lkim65]

02:35 AM on 05/28/2011

That's kinda like "the pot calling the kettle black" so to speak. Hey, the SCOTUS pulled sh*t out of thin air for the 'Citizens United' case so I guess the District Court felt it was only appropriate.

[adoantarel]

02:10 AM on 05/28/2011

The issue of gay marriage is settled law as well, but changes in court decisions since Nelson make the current challenges valid. Sometimes The SC gets it wrong, as I think they did in Citizens United.

[Helloise]

10:42 PM on 05/28/2011

Sometimes? The current con crew on the Roberts court is batting a thousand in favor of corporations and against consumers, citizens and voters. They have competition, but are far along in the line to become one of, if not the worst in modern history, replete with glaring conflicts of interest, brazen partisanship and outright activism. Ugh.

[dennidus1680]

02:41 PM on 05/29/2011

ditto. F

[adoantarel]

10:44 AM on 06/04/2011

Agreed.

[mrhandyman3105]

01:56 AM on 05/28/2011

Maybe someone could tell me how a lower federal district court can overrule the "Supreme Court of the United States"?
This sets a very "BAD" precedent. You'll have chaos in the rule of law and courts, with the Supreme Court making a ruling and subsequently a lower court making a ruling contradicting the Supreme Court ruling. Who do you follow?

[edgarcaycedoc]

06:35 PM on 05/28/2011

As much as I hate to have anything come before the "Gang of Four (and sometimes five), the SCOTUS has final authority.

[LoneTree]

01:46 AM on 05/28/2011

If it's going to be appealed and overruled, nothing said here is going to influence that in the slightest. Just more gas being passed. Apply all this energy to something useful, like starting a company to employ people?

[Rogan]

11:12 AM on 05/28/2011

Well, starting a company requires a lot more cash, than has exchanged hands over this article, and all the comments appended to it... but otherwise, yes, you make a great point. I'm moving along myself...