Corporate political spending Corporate personhood

a central point of debate in recent years has been role corporate money plays , should play in democratic politics. part of larger debate on campaign finance reform , role money may play in politics.

in united states, legal milestones in debate include:

tillman act of 1907, banned corporate political contributions national campaigns.
federal election campaign act of 1971, campaign financing legislation.
1974 amendments federal election campaign act provided first comprehensive system of regulation, including limitations on size of contributions , expenditures , prohibitions on entities contributing or spending, disclosure, creation of federal election commission regulatory agency, , government funding of presidential campaigns.
buckley v. valeo, 424 u.s. 1 (1976) upheld limits on campaign contributions, held spending money influence elections protected speech first amendment.
first national bank of boston v. bellotti (1978) upheld rights of corporations spend money in non-candidate elections (i.e. ballot initiatives , referendums).
austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) upheld right of state of michigan prohibit corporations using money corporate treasuries support or oppose candidates in elections, noting: [c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.
bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (mccain–feingold), banned corporate funding of issue advocacy ads mentioned candidates close election.
mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003), substantially upheld mccain–feingold.
federal election commission v. wisconsin right life, inc. (2007) weakened mccain–feingold, upheld core of mcconnell.
citizens united v. federal election commission, 558 u.s. 844 (2010) supreme court of united states held corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot limited under first amendment, overruling austin (1990) , partly overruling mcconnell (2003).
western tradition partnership, inc. v. attorney general of montana (2012). u.s. supreme court summary reversal of decision montana supreme court holding citizens united did not preclude montana state law prohibiting corporate spending in elections.

the corporate personhood aspect of campaign finance debate turns on buckley v. valeo (1976) , citizens united v. federal election commission (2010): buckley ruled political spending protected first amendment right free speech, while citizens united ruled corporate political spending protected, holding corporations have first amendment right free speech.