Floyd Yarmuth/CNN
Posted: 02/25/2013
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign contributions in federal elections.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi, who wanted the courts to say the ban violates corporations' free-speech rights.
A federal judge agreed with them, but the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., overturned that decision. The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision struck down a prohibition against corporate spending on campaign activities by independent groups but left untouched the ban on direct contributions to candidates.
The judge said independent expenditures and direct contributions were both political speech, but the appeals court said they must be regulated differently.
The justices will not review that decision.
This comes one week after the justices decided to hear a challenge to limits on how much an individual can give to political campaigns. In that case, an Alabama man argues that it's unconstitutional to stop a donor from giving more than $46,200 to political candidates and $70,800 to political committees and PACs.
Shaun McCutcheon says he accepts that he can only give $2,500 to a single candidate but says he should be able to give that amount to as many GOP candidates as he wants.
The justices will hear that case later this year.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
National News
Obama is not claiming final victory over extremists who still seek to kill Americans and other Westerners. Instead, he is refocusing the long struggle against terrorism that lies ahead, steering the United States away from what he calls an equally frightening threat — a country in a state of perpetual war.
Top Stories
Obama is not claiming final victory over extremists who still seek to kill Americans and other Westerners. Instead, he is refocusing the long struggle against terrorism that lies ahead, steering the United States away from what he calls an equally frightening threat — a country in a state of perpetual war.