Debate on Contributions Shifts to Investors

The U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that struck down the government ban on political spending by corporations will shift the fight over campaign contributions to directors and shareholders, lawyer Theodore Olson predicts.

Posted by Matthew Keenan at February 2, 2010 at 09:15 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that struck down the government ban on political spending by corporations will shift the fight over campaign contributions to directors and shareholders, lawyer Theodore Olson predicts.

Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general, argued before the court for Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation that produced a 2008 film about Hillary Clinton, then a U.S. senator and presidential candidate. Citizens United’s plan to show the film on the cable television on-demand system was blocked by a federal law barring corporations from using general treasury funds for political advocacy. The Supreme Court overturned the law on January 21. Olson writes:

“The decision creates new corporate governance issues by shifting efforts to restrict corporate political speech from Congress to the boardroom. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that corporate political speech can be banned in order to protect dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund political speech with which they disagree. In the aftermath of Citizens United, it can be expected that shareholders in some corporations will attempt to adopt measures restricting corporate participation in the electoral process and mandating disclosure of corporations’ political activities.”