Campaign Finance Expert Stephen Zralek on Supreme Court's Landmark Corporate Contributions Decision
How will the January 21, 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on corporate contributions affect the political landscape on the state and local level? In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held that corporations, just like individuals, are entitled to make "independent expenditures." Thus, at the federal level, corporations may use their own funds to pay for ads urging voters' support of or opposition to particular candidates. They may now also make independent "electioneering communications," which the federal law defines as similar ads via broadcast, cable and satellite. This decision does not change the policy on making corporate contributions directly to political candidates - a practice that is banned on both the federal level and in many states, including Tennessee.
The new ruling is sure to impact not only federal races, but also state, local and judicial races. The Supreme Court's decision calls into doubt restrictions on corporate political speech at the state level, even though the opinion did not explicitly address that issue. Until amended or overturned, however, state laws remain in effect, and corporations that make independent expenditures regarding political races in Tennessee run the risk of criminal prosecution. Corporations unwilling to wait for legislative action have the option of filing suit to have the state restriction declared unconstitutional.
Stephen Zralek is a litigator focused on intellectual property disputes, who also advises clients on issues of campaign finance. He has been named "Best of the Bar" both for his intellectual property practice and his campaign finance practice. Throughout his career, he has provided pro bono legal assistance to candidates at the local, state and national level, as well as non-profit organizations such as Nashville For All of Us, the ACLU and the Tennessee Democratic Party. He is a frequent author and speaker on intellectual property and campaign finance issues.
The new ruling is sure to impact not only federal races, but also state, local and judicial races. The Supreme Court's decision calls into doubt restrictions on corporate political speech at the state level, even though the opinion did not explicitly address that issue. Until amended or overturned, however, state laws remain in effect, and corporations that make independent expenditures regarding political races in Tennessee run the risk of criminal prosecution. Corporations unwilling to wait for legislative action have the option of filing suit to have the state restriction declared unconstitutional.
Stephen Zralek is a litigator focused on intellectual property disputes, who also advises clients on issues of campaign finance. He has been named "Best of the Bar" both for his intellectual property practice and his campaign finance practice. Throughout his career, he has provided pro bono legal assistance to candidates at the local, state and national level, as well as non-profit organizations such as Nashville For All of Us, the ACLU and the Tennessee Democratic Party. He is a frequent author and speaker on intellectual property and campaign finance issues.
