| 词条 | Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce |ArgueDate=October 31 |ArgueYear=1989 |DecideDate=March 27 |DecideYear=1990 |FullName=Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce |USVol=494 |USPage=652 |ParallelCitations=110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371 |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding= The Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First or the Fourteenth Amendment. |SCOTUS=1988-1990 |Majority=Marshall |JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens |Concurrence=Brennan |Concurrence2=Stevens |Dissent=Scalia |Dissent2=Kennedy |JoinDissent2=O'Connor, Scalia |LawsApplied= U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV | Overruled=Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) }} Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is a United States corporate law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court upheld the restriction on corporate speech, stating, "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund. BackgroundThe Michigan Campaign Finance Act banned corporations from spending treasury money on "independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices." The Act had one loophole-if a corporation had an independent fund solely used for political purposes the law did not apply. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce sought to use its general funds to publish an advertisement in a local newspaper to support a candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives,[1] Opinion of the CourtLouis J. Caruso, Lansing, Michigan, argued on the side of the appellants (Austin). Richard D. McLellan, Lansing, Michigan, argued for the respondent (Michigan Chamber of Commerce).[2] In an opinion by Justice Marshall, the Court held the Act did not violate the First or the Fourteenth Amendments. The Court recognized a state's compelling interest in combating a "different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas." Marshall concluded by noting the importance of the Act: {{quote|Michigan identified as a serious danger the significant possibility that corporate political expenditures will undermine the integrity of the political process, and it has implemented a narrowly tailored solution to that problem. By requiring corporations to make all independent political expenditures through a separate fund made up of money solicited expressly for political purposes, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act reduces the threat that huge corporate treasuries amassed with the aid of favorable state laws will be used to influence unfairly the outcome of elections.}} Marshall was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens. Justice Kennedy wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and O'Connor. Subsequent developmentsThe decision was overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010),[3][4] ruling that the First Amendment right of free speech applied to corporations. See also
References1. ^{{cite web|title=Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerece|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1569|publisher=Oyez: Chicago-Kent College of Law|accessdate=27 January 2014}} 2. ^{{cite web|url=http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/494/494.US.652.88-1569.html |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2011-01-17 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120308164510/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/494/494.US.652.88-1569.html |archivedate=2012-03-08 |df= }} 3. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2242209/|title=Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform|first=Richard L.|last=Hasen|publisher=Slate|date=2010-01-21}} 4. ^{{Cite journal|last=Ryan|first=Daniel P.|date=2010|title=Citizens United, Austin, and the Unconstitutionality of MCL Section 169.254(1)|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2112556|language=en|location=Rochester, NY}} External links
| case = Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, {{ussc|494|652|1990|el=no}} | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112398/austin-v-michigan-chamber-of-commerce/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/494/652.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3609582225306729508 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/652/case.html | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep494/usrep494652/usrep494652.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1569 6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court|United States elections case law|1990 in United States case law|Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions|Legal history of Michigan |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。