In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494
U.S. 652 (1990), a business organization challenged a
state statute prohibiting corporations from using
corporate treasury funds for independent expenditures in
support of or in opposition to candidates in elections for
state offices. The Supreme Court held that: (1) unique
state-conferred corporate structure which facilitates the
amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on
independent expenditures; (2) statute is sufficiently
narrowly tailored to achieve its goal; (3) statute may be
constitutionally applied to not-for-profit corporations;
and (4) there is no equal protection violation in fact that
act does not apply to labor unions, unincorporated
associations, and news media corporations.
In Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central
Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989), party central
committees challenged sections of California Election
Code banning primary endorsements and imposing
restrictions on internal policy governance of political
parties. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the ban on
primary endorsements violated the First and Fourteenth
Amendments; and (2) restrictions on organization and
composition of official governing bodies of political
parties, limits on term of office for state central committee
chairs, and requirement that such chairs rotate between
residents of Northern and Southern California could not
be upheld.
In Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189
(1986), a candidate on primary election ballot, his
political party, and two registered voters brought suit
alleging that their First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights were abridged by state statute requiring that
minor-party candidate receive at least 1% of votes cast in
primary election before name would be placed on general
election ballot. Held: the statute was not
unconstitutional, because burdens imposed on minority
party candidates’ First Amendment rights were not too
severe to overcome state’s interest in restricting access to
general ballot.
In Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts
Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986), the Federal
Election Commission brought an enforcement proceed-
ing seeking to hold nonprofit corporation liable under
Federal Election Campaign Act for publishing newsletter
urging readers to vote “pro-life” in upcoming primary
election. The Supreme Court held that: (1) corporation’s
publication and distribution of newsletter urging readers
to vote “pro-life” in upcoming primary election violated
section of Act prohibiting direct expenditure of corporate
funds in connection with election to public office, but (2)
section violated First Amendment as applied.In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479
U.S. 208 (1986), Connecticut’s closed primary law
impermissibly interfered with political party’s First
Amendment right to define its associational boundaries.Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976), upheld the
regulation of an army base commander which had
prevented Dr. Benjamin Spock from campaigning for the
Presidency from the grounds of the Fort Dix, New Jersey
military reservation. Another regulation which
permitted the commander to ban certain publications
from the base was also allowed to stand. The Court
observed that the “business of a military institution like
Fort Dix is to train soldiers, not to provide a public
forum.” In addition, the commander possessed the
“historically unquestioned power” to exclude civilians
from the base in order to further the unique function of
the military. There exists no “generalized constitutional
right” to make speeches or to distribute literature within
the confines of a military base. The Court referred to the
traditional political neutrality of military bases in finding
the exclusion to be constitutional.Markwardt v. New Beginnings, 304 N.J. Super. 522
(App. Div. 1997), held that individuals, corporations,
businesses and continuing political committees may not
evade restrictions of the Campaign Contribution and
Expenditure Reporting Act by entering into agreements
to funnel money to a candidate or his or her campaign
committee.- Canvassing and Soliciting
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S.
334 (1995), a pamphleteer challenged a fine imposed by
Ohio Elections Commission for distributing anonymous
leaflets opposing proposed school tax levy. The Supreme
Court held that Ohio’s statutory prohibition against
distribution of any anonymous campaign literature
violated First Amendment.In International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.
v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992), a nonprofit religious
corporation challenged the port authority’s restrictions
on distribution of literature and solicitation of
contributions in airport terminals. The Supreme Court
held that: (1) airport terminal was nonpublic forum for
First Amendment purposes; and (2) prohibition on
solicitation of contributions satisfied reasonableness
requirement.