| Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 31, 1989 Decided March 27, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Richard H. Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, et al. v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce |
| Citations | 494 U.S. 652 (more) 110 S. Ct. 1391; 108 L. Ed. 2d 652; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1665; 58 U.S.L.W. 4371 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for defendants, Michigan State Chamber of Commerce v. Austin, 643 F. Supp 397 (W.D. Mich. 1986); reversed, 856 F.2d 783 (6th Cir. 1988); rehearing denied, 865 F.2d 716 (6th Cir. 1988); probable jurisdiction noted, 490 U.S. 1045 (1989). |
| Subsequent | Affirmed, 937 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1991). |
| 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. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Concurrence | Brennan |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Dissent | Scalia |
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by O'Connor, Scalia |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV | |
Overruled by | |
| Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) | |
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance regulations. The majority opinion authored by Thurgood Marshall held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which burdened political speech by prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, was appropriately justified by a compelling state interest so as to overcome a First Amendment challenge. The court also found no Fourteenth Amendment violation, stating that Congress could treat press corporations and nonpress corporations differently without violating the Equal Protection Clause. Upholding the restriction on corporate political speech, The Court stated that "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.