William Danielczyk, Convicted of Making a Campaign Contribution from His Corporation, Asks U.S. Supreme Court for Relief

On November 8, William P. Danielczyk asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that he should not be convicted of the crime of arranging for his corporation to make a campaign donation to a candidate for federal office. The U.S. District Court in his case had ruled that the federal law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional. The 4th circuit had reversed the U.S. District Court, and upheld the law banning corporation contributions to federal candidates.

Danielczyk argues that the distinction between corporations making independent expenditures, versus making direct contributions, is not meaningful. The case is Danielczyk v U.S., 12-579. The federal government’s response brief is due December 10. Afterwards, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it wants to hear this case. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.


William Danielczyk, Convicted of Making a Campaign Contribution from His Corporation, Asks U.S. Supreme Court for Relief — 3 Comments

  1. How about have an income tax on the receipt of ALL *contributions* — to pay off the now about 16 TRILLION national debt ??? Yeah. Sure.

  2. 1. Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people. Corporations are not people. The Supreme Court should not pretend otherwise and it should not ignore the First Amendment on ballot access cases, but then roll it out for corporations.

    2. Interesting enough their is some tiny town in Minnesota, in a fairly conservative part of the State, that apparently spread out its presidential votes for right and left wing third party candidates.

  3. 2 –

    Justice Scalia and any of his Originalist crowd could school you on the fact that the Founding Fathers were adamant supporters of free speech for corporate persons. For instance, consider this passage from Madison’s notes to the US Constitution Convention:

    G. Morris – I propose that we prohibit faceless corporate persons from exercising free speech in the form of huge monetary donations to Super Pacs not coordinated with national presidential campaigns.

    B. Franklin – I take great offense to the characterization of corporate persons as faceless. Some of my very best friends are corporate persons and have very fine faces indeed.

    C. Pinckney – Be it resolved then that corporate persons shall be allowed to exercise their free speech in only the battleground states as identified by modern polling science and by all of the major electronic news outlets.

    G. Washington – Huh?

    J. Madison – I support Mr. Pinckney’s motion, with the exceptions of corporate persons who do not own property and female corporate persons, of course.

    R. Sherman – And enslaved corporate persons shall be given 3/5 rights to free speech?

    G. Washington – Oh STFU, will ya “Mr. Compomiser?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *