Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Media Items
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Appellants)
Richard D. McLellan (on behalf of the Respondent)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
88-1569
Appellee: 
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Appellant: 
Austin
Opinion: 
494 U.S. 652 (1990)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U.S. 652 (1990)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1569)
Facts of the Case: 

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act prohibited corporations from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices. However, if a corporation set up an independent fund designated solely for political purposes, it could make such expenditures. The law was enacted with the assumption that "the unique legal and economic characteristics of corporations necessitate some regulation of their political expenditures to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption." The Michigan Chamber of Commerce wanted to support a candidate for Michigan's House of Representatives by using general funds to sponsor a newspaper advertisement.

Question: 

Did the Michigan Campaign Finance Act violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion: 

No. In making its case, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued that it should have been excluded from the act's restrictions since the Chamber was a "nonprofit ideological corporation" which was more analogous to a political association than a business firm. The Court disagreed and upheld the Michigan law. Justice Marshall found that the Chamber was akin to a business group given its activities, linkages with community business leaders, and high degree of members (over seventy-five percent) which were business corporations. Furthermore, Marshall found that the statute was narrowly crafted and implemented to achieve the important goal of maintaining integrity in the political process.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Austin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote the majority opinion
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent, joined Kennedy's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court