Advocates of campaign finance restrictions breathed a small sigh of relief Monday when the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates and political parties in a case known as U.S. v. Danielczyk.
The high court made news last week when it agreed to consider a separate challenge to the aggregate limit on how much an individual may donate to political parties, candidates and PACs in one election cycle. The court’s decision to take up that case, known as McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, had triggered speculation that direct campaign contribution restrictions may be in danger, too.
But the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Danielczyk case, first reported by SCOTUSBlog, cheered defenders of political money regulations, who’ve been playing defense since the court’s landmark 2010 ruling to throw out long-standing limits on independent corporate and union spending.
The Campaign Legal Center applauded the decision not to take up U.S. v. Danielczyk, which turned on criminal allegations that donors had directed illegal corporate contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
The decision "does nothing to mitigate the court’s disturbing decision last week to revisit the aggregate contributions passed in the wake of the Watergate scandals,” which, if reversed, would enable individuals to make aggregate donations into the millions, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel Tara Malloy said in a statement. “But at least today the court has decided to stay its deregulatory hand.”