from the Wall Street Journal:
Campaign-Finance Ruling LoomsBy JESS BRAVIN
Montana voters, fed up with the grip of out-of-state mining interests on local politicians, passed an initiative in 1912 banning corporate spending on candidates for state office. As soon as Tuesday, that law -- and similar ones in nearly half the states -- could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for infringing corporations' free-speech rights.
None of those state laws specifically were at issue when the court agreed to hear Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which challenged provisions of the federal McCain-Feingold Act. The 2002 law built on a longstanding ban on direct corporate giving to House, Senate and presidential candidates by reining in so-called issue advertisements, such as television spots a corporation takes out on its own to help a particular politician's election or defeat.
Under the law, corporations and unions may not use general funds for such advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Instead, they must channel their electioneering through political action committees that solicit contributions from executives, employees, shareholders and other affiliates of the corporation.
The case initially involved a feature-length movie attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, produced by a conservative advocacy group chartered as a nonprofit corporation. But instead of delivering an opinion after March arguments, the Supreme Court in June ordered re-argument on a much broader question: Should prior cases that upheld restrictions on corporate independent expenditures be overruled?
In 1990, the court voted 6-3 to uphold the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which, like the McCain-Feingold provision, required corporations to raise funds through political action committees for their electioneering efforts, rather than draw from profits or general treasuries. .........(more)
The complete piece is at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126023967777081231.html