A Penny for Your Votes: Eliminating Corporate Contribution Bans and Promoting Disclosure After Citizens United

25 Pages Posted: 24 Feb 2015

See all articles by Sarah Raaii

Sarah Raaii

University of Iowa, College of Law, Students

Date Written: February 21, 2015

Abstract

In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission established that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech. Citizens United subjected the federal ban on corporate independent expenditures to strict scrutiny, ultimately holding the ban unconstitutional. This Note argues that courts should also apply strict scrutiny to federal and state bans on corporate contributions because these bans discriminate on the basis of corporate identity, similar to the independent expenditure bans struck down in Citizens United. Even if strict scrutiny reveals that some limits on corporate contributions are necessary, a complete ban is not narrowly tailored to governmental interests and is therefore unconstitutional. Further, as Iowa’s contribution ban exemplifies, many bans in their current form are susceptible to loopholes. To overcome the unconstitutionality of corporate contribution bans and their potential for loopholes, this Note argues that campaign finance disclosure is an ideal alternative for accomplishing the goals of corporate contribution bans.

Keywords: Citizens United, campaign finance, corporations, corporate contributions, independent expenditures, disclosure

JEL Classification: K20, K00, K10, K42, K30, K39

Suggested Citation

Raaii, Sarah, A Penny for Your Votes: Eliminating Corporate Contribution Bans and Promoting Disclosure After Citizens United (February 21, 2015). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2015, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2490151

Sarah Raaii (Contact Author)

University of Iowa, College of Law, Students ( email )

Iowa City, IA
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
31
Abstract Views
522
PlumX Metrics