• Home
• Voting & Democracy
  • Go Vote
  • N.C. Voter Guide
  • VoterRadio.com
• Research & Publications
  • Follow the Money
  • NCCVE Research
• Multimedia
  • The Voter Update Podcast
• For the Media
  • News Releases
  • Media Advisories
  • Contact NCCVE
• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contribute to NCCVE
  • Contact Us
• Search

For Immediate Release
June 16, 2003
Contact: Chris Heagarty, N.C. Center for Voter Education,
(919) 839-1200

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Protects Campaign Finance Laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. - By a vote of 7-2, the United States Supreme Court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics. This is being hailed as a significant victory for North Carolina political reform groups and supporters of campaign finance reform.

On June 16, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in FEC v. Beaumont, upheld Federal campaign finance law's longstanding ban on contributions of corporate treasury funds to Federal candidates. Specifically, it ruled that it was constitutional to prevent ideological corporations, such as the plaintiff in this case, the North Carolina Right to Life (NCRL), from making unlimited campaign contributions to candidates for federal office.

With this decision, it overruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had previously invalidated the corporate political contribution ban with respect to groups like NCRL. The Supreme Court's opinion - adopted by a 7-2 vote - was written by Justice David Souter.

This means that organizations, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, that are heavily involved with pushing a political or issue-driven agenda cannot use their corporate funds to back political candidates. This ruling does not prevent them from expressing their views on their own, running independent advertising, or otherwise engaging in political speech. The organizations can still contribute to political campaigns if they form a political action committee and follow the rules established by North Carolina and the federal government. However these legal donations are limited and are disclosed to the public, so that any citizen can track them.

"This is an important victory," said Chris Heagarty, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education, a nonpartisan voter education organization based in Raleigh. "The Supreme Court has recognized the difference between free speech and giving money to campaigns."

He added that the court agreed that regulating campaign donations does not limit any organization's constitutional rights.

"These organizations can still say what they want about politics, and pay whatever the want to say it. What they can't do is give money to politicians to influence elections unless they are willing to play by the rules."

Heagarty believes this decision may be an early look at how the court will look at the role of money versus free speech later this year when it considers the constitutionality of the new restrictions on campaign contributions that became law under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold bill.

# # #