High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
No.
08-205
W
ILSON
-E
PES
P
RINTING
C
O
.,
I
NC
.
–
(202)
789-0096
–
W
ASHINGTON
,
D.
C.
20002
I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
————
C
ITIZENS
U
NITED
,
Appellant,
v.F
EDERAL
E
LECTION
C
OMMISSION
,
Appellee.
————
On Appeal fromthe United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia
————
BRIEF OF AMICUSCAMPAIGN FINANCE SCHOLARSIN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT,CITIZENS UNITED
————
P
ROFESSOR
A
LLISON
R.
H
AYWARD
Counsel of Record
G
EORGE
M
ASON
U
NIVERSITY
S
CHOOL OF
L
AW
3301 Fairfax Dr. MS1G3 Arlington VA 22201(703) 993-8746
(i)TABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iiINTEREST OF THE
AMICUS CURIAE
............ 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4I. THE
AUTO WORKERS
OPINION HAS ALLOWED THIS COURT AND LOWERCOURTS TO DEFER TO LEGISLA-TIVE JUDGMENTS WHEN CAM-PAIGN FINANCE LAWS DESERVESPECIAL SCRUTINY .............................. 5II. RESTRICTIONS ON CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS IN POLITICS HAVENOT BEEN THE PRODUCT OF CA-REFUL LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT,BUT INSTEAD HAVE BEEN A WEA-PON DEPLOYED AGAINST POLITI-CAL RIVALS ............................................. 6 A. The Roots of Corporate CampaignFinance Restrictions ............................ 7B. Extending Campaign Finance Re-strictions to Labor Unions................... 10C. Congress Bans Corporate and LaborExpenditures ....................................... 12III. WHY DID THE COURT ADOPT THIS VERSION OF HISTORY? ........................ 16CONCLUSION .................................................... 18
iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES Page
Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce
,
494 U.S. 652 (1990) ............................ 4, 6, 10, 18
FEC v. Beaumont
, 537 U.S. 146 (2003) ....... 5, 6
FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. CampaignComm.
, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ..................... 5
FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc.
, 479U.S. 238 (1986) .......................................... 10, 18
FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm.
, 459U.S. 197 (1982) .......................................... 6
McConnell v. FEC
, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ........ 4, 5
Nixon v. Shrink Miss. Gov’t PAC
, 528 U.S.377 (2000) .................................................. 5
United States v. CIO
, 335 U.S. 106 (1948) .. 14-15
United States v. CIO
, 77 F. Supp. 355(D.D.C. 1948) ............................................. 14
United States v. Const. & Gen. Lab. Union No. 264
, 101 F. Supp 869 (W.D. Mo.1951) .......................................................... 14
United States v. Int’l Union United Auto., Aircraft, and Agric. Implement Workersof Am.
, 352 U.S. 567 (1957) .....................
passim
United States v. Painters Local Union No. 481
, 172 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1949),
rev’g
79F. Supp 516 (1948) .................................... 15
United States v. UAW-CIO
, 138 F. Supp.53 (E.D. Mich. 1956) ................................. 16STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVEMATERIALS
Federal Election Act of 1955: Hearing on S.636 Before the S. Comm. on Rules and Admin.
, 84th Cong. 201 (1955) ................. 1589 Cong. Rec. 5328 (1943) ............................ 11
Add a Comment