A federal judge in Virginia declared on Thursday that the long-standing ban on corporations contributing directly to candidates running for federal office was unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge James Cacheris based his ruling on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from January 2010, which made it legal for corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose federal candidates. The controversial 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United left intact a ban on direct corporate contributions to federal candidates.

Cacheris’ decision struck down sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, named after its chief sponsors Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

“That logic is inescapable here… if, in Citizens United’s interpretation of Bellotti, corporations and human beings are entitled to equal political speech rights, then corporations must also be able to contribute within FECA’s limits,” Cacheris states in his opinion for the case, U.S. v. Danielczyk.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) sets caps on how much money individuals can contribute to federal candidates — amounts that increase every election cycle. The current contribution limit is $2,500 per election, with a primary election and a general election being viewed as two separate elections.

The defendants in the case before Cacheris — William Danielczyk, 49, and Eugene Biagi, 76, who live in Oakton, Va.– allegedly reimbursed $30,200 to eight contributors to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign and reimbursed $156,400 to 35 contributors to her 2008 presidential campaign from their company’s treasury, the Associated Press reported.

Until Thursday’s ruling, the Citizens United case had not been applied to direct contributions by corporations. Earlier this month the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a federal judge in Minnesota who upheld that state’s ban on direct campaign contributions.

The case could make its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

And although the ruling only applies to corporations in Cacheris’ district, if it is upheld by a higher court, companies across the country will be able to contribute directly to campaigns.

Several election law observers say Cacheris’ opinion isn’t likely to stand.

“A district judge cannot ignore and overrule what the Supreme Court has stated, and that’s apparently what this judge seems to have done,” Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, which supports campaign finance regulations, told OpenSecrets Blog. “We expect it to be withdrawn or overruled.”

The ruling comes as candidates are gearing up for the 2012 election cycle, which is already expected to raise record amounts in campaign cash.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]

·

·

·

·

·

·

Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust. Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜

Read more OpenSecrets News & Analysis: