Transcript Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission
The Impact of the
Supreme Court’s Decision
Mike Gilliland, Jack Keeney,
Jamie Wickett, Adam Feuerstein
March 10, 2010
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
Citizens United v. FEC
•
“The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same
direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the
speaker is a corporation or union.” – Chief Justice John
Roberts
•
“The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
institutions around the nation.” – Justice John Paul Stevens
•
“The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will
open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign
corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. I don't
think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most
powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be
decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and
Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these
problems.” – President Barack Obama
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
2
Citizens United v. FEC
•
“I think the Supreme Court’s decision today is a big win for the
First Amendment and a step in the right direction." – House
Republican Leader John Boehner
•
“With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an
important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment
rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects
their right to express themselves about political candidates and
issues up until Election Day.” – Senate Republican Leader
Mitch McConnell
•
“The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can
buy elections. If that happens, democracy in America is over.
We cannot put the law up for sale and award government to the
highest bidder.” – Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL)
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
3
Before Citizens United
•
2 USC 441b (as amended by 2002 BCRA) prohibited corporations and
unions from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any
election to any federal political office.
•
This ban included not only direct contributions to candidates but also
independent expenditures. An independent expenditure is an expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a
clearly identified federal candidate that is not made in cooperation with the
candidate or the candidate’s authorized committee.
•
With limited exceptions, only individuals and political action committees
were allowed to make independent expenditures. All persons and entities
prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with
federal elections, such as corporations and labor organizations, were
prohibited from buying ads that expressly supported or opposed named
candidates for federal office.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
4
Before Citizens United (cont’d)
•
Corporations and labor organizations were also prohibited from making or
financing electioneering communications.
•
An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable or satellite
communication that fulfills the following conditions:
1.
The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office;
2.
The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office
that candidate is seeking; and
3.
The communication is targeted to U.S. House and Senate candidates only.
•
Electioneering communication rules apply only to communications that are
transmitted within sixty (60) days prior to a general election or thirty (30) days
prior to a primary election for the federal office sought by the candidate.
•
Under prior law, corporations and unions could contribute to electioneering
communications only through their political action committees.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
5
Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
•
In Citizens United v. FEC the Supreme Court struck down as
unconstitutional under the First Amendment federal statutory prohibitions
on “independent expenditures” by corporations and labor organizations.
•
Essentially, the Court’s ruling permits corporations and labor organizations
to use their treasury funds to make independent expenditures in
connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering
communications.
•
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union
contributions to candidates or the reporting requirements for independent
expenditures on electioneering communications.
•
The 5/4 decision overruled two precedents about the First Amendment
rights of corporations:
–
A 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that upheld restrictions on
corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates;
–
A 2003 decision in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission that upheld the part of
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by
corporations and unions.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
6
Decision in Citizens United v. FEC
•
However, the Supreme Court’s decision did continue the
Supreme Court’s 1976 distinction, in its decision in Buckley v.
Valeo, between constitutionally impermissible regulation of
election “expenditures” and constitutionally permissible
regulations of “contributions.”
•
The Court in Citizens United also upheld the validity of federal
law disclosure and disclaimer requirements applicable to
election-related advertising by corporations and unions. These
disclosure requirements will now apply to advertising by
corporations and unions that is permitted as a result of this
opinion.
•
Currently, organizations spending more than $250 with respect
to a given election in a calendar year on election-related ads
must report those expenditures to the FEC on FEC Form 5.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
7
What Changed
•
This decision allows corporations (and labor unions) to fund,
directly, independent media communications (including, but not
limited to radio, television, internet, and mail) expressly
advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates.
–
Example – “Vote for Obama” or “Defeat Obama”
•
Broad Impact – The same First Amendment analysis applies
equally to state and municipal statutes that similarly prohibit
corporate expenditures advocating the election or defeat of state
candidates, including judicial candidates in those states that
elect judges.
•
All corporate independent expenditures must be truthfully
disclosed to the FEC, subject to civil or criminal penalties.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
8
What Didn’t Change
•
Direct corporate or union contributions to federal candidates or federal party
committees remain prohibited.
–
While the First Amendment distinction between permissible “expenditures” and prohibited
“contributions” is somewhat artificial, the Court has long recognized such a distinction since its
seminal 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo.
•
Public Communications by corporations that are coordinated with candidates
and parties remain prohibited.
•
Foreign nationals are still prohibited from involvement in U.S. elections.
•
–
2 U.S.C 441e and 11 C.F.R. 110.20 prohibit “contributions, donations, expenditures,
independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals” directly or indirectly.
–
FEC regulations have long recognized that U.S. domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations
may participate in U.S. election-related activities, where only U.S. citizens or foreign nationals
with U.S. permanent resident status may be involved in such activities.
The “soft money” limitations of the McCain-Feingold Act on national parties
and others were not changed by the decision.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
9
Impact on Corporate PACs
•
Although the statutory requirements and FEC rules were not
changed by the holding, there is a practical impact.
•
Because corporations can spend money directly on
electioneering communications, one permissible use of the PAC
(electioneering) can now be accomplished outside the PAC and
outside the restrictions on PAC fundraising and expenditures.
•
A PAC does remain useful as a vehicle for direct contributions to
federal candidates and other committees.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
10
Practical Implications
•
A corporation (and labor union) for the first time can
communicate with the public, directly through any media, at any
time, in support of any federal candidate.
•
Direct corporate (and labor union) contributions to federal
candidates and federal committees remain prohibited. Such
contributions can be made by individuals or a PAC.
•
Many corporations and labor unions may revisit the use of a
corporate PAC.
•
Some existing state prohibitions that are narrowly tailored to
prohibit the time and manner of electioneering expenditures by
registered lobbyists may have stronger compelling state
interests that survive the First Amendment challenge.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
11
What’s Next in Congress –
Schumer/Van Hollen Bill
•
For government contractors and TARP recipients, prohibits independent
corporate expenditures found constitutionally permissible for corporations in
general by Citizens United
–
•
Bans (again) “foreign” independent corporate expenditures that the Citizens
United opinion said was not at issue in case
–
–
•
Is the stronger legislative justification for these two categories sufficient to withstand First
Amendment challenge?
Broadens new definition of "foreign" to include:
•
Ownership (including shareholders) of 20% or more;
•
a majority of board of directors are foreign nationals; or
•
for U.S. operations, including U.S subsidiaries, the decision on political activities is controlled by a
foreign entity.
Overbroad in today's global economy?
Stronger Disclaimers
–
“Stand by your ads“ cameo by CEO, or if a group, top funder
–
Also, for a group, list top 5 contributors at end of ad
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
12
What’s Next in Congress –
Schumer/Van Hollen Bill (cont’d)
•
•
Stronger anti-coordination rules
–
For House and Senate races, would ban coordination between a
corporation or union and the candidate on ads referencing a
Congressional candidate within 90 days of the primary through the
general election.
–
For all federal elections, at any time before the 90 or 120 day
window opens, it would ban coordination of ads between a
corporation or union and the candidate when they promote,
support, attack or oppose a candidate.
Additional Provisions
–
Greater detailed reporting to FEC, shareholders, and by lobbyists
–
Lowest unit rate rule for response by candidate or party
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
13
What’s Next in the Courts
•
•
•
D.C. Circuit – Speechnow.org v. FEC
–
argued after Citizens United and awaiting decision
–
individuals seek to pool their resources to make independent expenditures expressly
advocating for and against federal candidates
–
a nonprofit Section 527 entity
–
challenges contribution limits, reporting requirements, and political committee
registration requirements
Three Judge District Court in D.C – Republican National Committee v.
FEC
–
received supplemental briefing on Citizens United
–
challenges soft money prohibitions on political parties under the First Amendment
Supreme Court – later this year the Court will decide the constitutionality
of California’s campaign contribution disclosure laws
–
Justice Thomas's dissent on the otherwise 8-1 upholding of federal disclosure and
disclaimers in Citizens United is a preview of at least one Justice's view
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
14
Citizens United and the Tax Rules
•
While Citizens United makes broad statements regarding
limitations on campaign activity, it does not directly address the
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code.
•
Therefore, taxpayers and tax-exempt entities should assume
that the rules are not changed and operate accordingly.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
15
501(c)(3) Organizations
•
Absolute prohibition on campaign activity
•
Generally includes participation or intervention in a campaign in
support of, or opposition to, any candidate.
•
Excise tax may be imposed on the organization and its
managers to the extent that it engages in campaign activity.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
16
501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6)
•
501(c)(4) organizations are social welfare organizations or civic
leagues and are often organizations that want to achieve
societal betterment but will engage in too much lobbying or
political activity to qualify as a 501(c)(3).
•
501(c)(6) organizations include business leagues and trade
associations.
•
Cannot have campaign activity as their “primary” purpose.
•
Must either (i) provide information to their members regarding
the portion of their dues allocable to campaign expenditures or
(ii) pay a tax on the campaign expenditures.
•
Subject to tax on the lesser of their campaign expenditures and
their net investment income.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
17
527 Organizations
•
Political organizations
•
Fund or organization that has a primary purpose of influencing
elections.
•
For tax purposes, this Section 527 covers both (i) entities
commonly referred to as 527 organizations and (ii) PACs.
•
Tax exempt with respect to contributions, dues, proceeds from
fundraising events, and certain sales of campaign materials and
bingo games if amounts are segregated for campaign activity.
•
Required to report the organization’s contributions and
expenditures and to file information returns.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
18
Business Operations
•
•
No deduction is available as a business expense for campaign
expenditures.
–
Indirect campaign contributions (dinners, advertising in a program,
and inaugural events) and the cancellation of indebtedness to a
political party or campaign committee are also limited.
–
Expenses incurred to establish a PAC are generally not deductible.
In addition, a contributor to a tax-exempt organization, such as a
trade association, cannot take a deduction to the extent that the
contributor is notified that their dues were used for campaign or
lobbying activities.
–
If the tax-exempt organization does not notify its contributors, it is
subject to tax as described earlier.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
19
Citizens United - Tax Law Impact
•
As stated earlier, Citizens United does not directly affect any
provision we have discussed above and the decision,
concurrences, and dissent all do not mention the various tax
limitations.
•
The Court’s clear disdain for limits on speech does cause one to
think it is possible that some of the limitations described above
may be subject to constitutional attack.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
20
Constitutional Precedent
•
•
There are two Supreme Court cases that have upheld limitations
in the tax Code that relate to campaign activity or lobbying.
–
Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington – Limits on
lobbying for 501(c)(3) organizations do not violate their First
Amendment rights.
–
Cammarano v. U.S. – Denying a tax deduction for lobbying
activities does not violate the first amendment.
These rationales are tax specific and inapplicable to the facts in
Citizens United.
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
21
Introducing Our Team
John C. Keeney, Jr.
Partner
Litigation/Election Law
C. Michael Gilliland
Partner
Legislation/Election Law
James M. Wickett
Partner
Legislation/ Election Law
Adam S. Feuerstein
Partner
Tax
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
(202) 637-5750
(202) 637-5619
(202) 637-6422
(202) 637-5763
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
22
For more information on
Hogan & Hartson, please visit us at
www.hhlaw.com
Abu Dhabi
Baltimore
Beijing
Berlin
Boulder
Brussels
Caracas
Colorado Springs
Denver
Geneva
Hong Kong
Houston
London
Los Angeles
Miami
Moscow
Munich
New York
Northern Virginia
Paris
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Shanghai
Silicon Valley
Tokyo
Warsaw
Washington, DC
© 2010 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved.
23