The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Tuesday, October 31, 1989
Decision: Tuesday, March 27, 1990
Issues: First Amendment, Campaign Spending

Advocates

Louis J. Caruso (on behalf of the Appellants)
Richard D. McLellan (on behalf of the Respondent)

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.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Austin, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly
Wrote the majority opinion
Marshall
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent, joined Kennedy's dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Full Opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1569/>
(last visited ).