Campaign-fund caps imposed on nonprofits

The Supreme Court yesterday ruled 7-2 that nonprofit advocacy groups that oppose abortion or protect trees are bound by the same ban against giving money to political candidates that applies to commercial companies.

“There is no reason to think the burden on advocacy corporations is any greater,” Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.

The decision upheld a 1971 revision of a ban on corporate donations dating from 1907, which the court said grew from “a popular feeling in the late 19th century that aggregated capital unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption.”

Also in the majority were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy agreed with the judgment, but not its reasoning, because he does not condone the precedents cited in the decision.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said in a one-paragraph dissent that imposing broad caps on donors is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The ruling upholds a Federal Election Commission action against North Carolina Right to Life, which sought to create an exception for groups contributing to candidates money collected specifically for political purposes.

“The category covers some of the nation’s most politically powerful organizations, including the AARP, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club,” replied the court, which said nonprofit advocacy groups “are, moreover, no less susceptible … to misuse as conduits” to evade individual contribution limits.

“Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts,” Justice Souter wrote.

Commercial as well as advocacy corporations may finance political action committees (PACs), which is supposed to dilute direct influence and reduces the potential for corruption, or its appearance, the principle underlying federal and state campaign-contribution limits.

The court said PACs allow corporations to play politics “without the temptation to use corporate funds for political influence, quite possibly at odds with the sentiments of some shareholders or members.”

It also permits government to regulate campaign money without jeopardizing the privacy of advocacy-group members, Justice Souter wrote.

Advocacy group Common Cause praised the decision.

“The court correctly recognized the corrupting political influence of corporate money in the political system and the long-standing consensus that such money should be kept out of American politics,” said Chellie Pingree, the president of the group.

Story Continues →