During the last eight days, three federal courts have either enjoined, or declared unconstitutional, various laws that control campaign spending:
1. On June 7, a U.S. District Court in Virginia re-affirmed its May 26 ruling in United States v Danielczyk, 1:11cr85 (e.d.). That ruling declares that the Constitution does not permit the government to ban all corporate donations to candidates for federal office. However, the newer ruling confines the holding to just that particular case, and also only to for-profit corporations, as opposed to ideological non-profit corporations. Here is the 18-page opinion of June 7. Of course, under this ruling, corporations must obey the limits on the amount of the donation.
2. On June 9, the 9th circuit agreed with a U.S. District Court, and maintained an injunction against certain San Diego city campaign finance restrictions. However, the 9th circuit also agreed with the U.S. District Court that certain other restrictions should not be enjoined. That case is Thalheimer v City of San Diego, 10-55434. The restrictions that continued to be enjoined are: (1) the ban on political parties making any contributions to candidates for city office; (2) the limit on how much may be contributed to a committee that makes independent expenditures for or against candidates for city office. The restrictions that remain in effect are: (1) no one may contribute to a candidate more than a year before the election; (2) groups (other than political parties) may not contribute directly to candidates for city office.
3. On June 15, a U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia enjoined a federal law that prohibits most political action committees from receiving unlimited donations to make independent expenditures in support or in opposition to candidates for federal office, if that same committee also makes direct contributions to any candidates for federal office. The court order does require such committees to keep separate bank accounts, one for contributions and one for independent expenditures. That case is Carey v Federal Election Commission, cv 11-259.
The extensive constitutional protection for independent expenditures for or against candidates, and the continuing restrictive rules on direct donations to candidates and political parties, has created a strange political culture in the United States. A large and growing proportion of speech about candidates comes not from the candidates themselves, and not from political parties, but from other individuals and groups, all of whom are required not to coordinate their speech with the candidate.