What's the Future for Citizen Groups?

By Richard E. Coleson, J.D.

On November 18, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Beaumont v. FEC, a case vital to citizen groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and its affiliates. The outcome will define what role these advocacy groups will play in public life.

Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit appellate court held in Beaumont that a ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates was unconstitutional as applied to corporations such as North Carolina Right to Life (a Beaumont plaintiff). The appellate court's decision built on the Supreme Court's FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) decision.

That 1986 case decided that MCFL-type corporations could make "independent expenditures" -- expenditures made for communications not coordinated with candidates but containing explicit words that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. The Supreme Court held that MCFL-type corporations posed no threat of "corrupting" the political process because they (1) have no substantial profit-making activity, (2) have no shareholders or others with a claim on the corporation's assets and earnings, (3) are exempt from federal income taxation, and (4) are funded overwhelmingly by donations from individuals.

Therefore, the Supreme Court reasoned, people donate to support the corporation's issues, no stockholders lose income, and no "war chests" of business money can skew political campaigns.

The Fourth Circuit extended that reasoning. If MCFL-type corporations pose no threat of corrupting the political system, then there is no justification to ban them from making direct contributions to candidates.

The underlying issue in Beaumont is whether the High Court will continue to find that MCFL-type corporations do not threaten the political system and have a vital public role. The outcome will affect how the Supreme Court decides another election-law case this term, McConnell v. FEC, which challenges the Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). BCRA is the outcome of McCain-Feingold legislation that NRLC fought for years.

Among other unacceptable provisions, BCRA bans corporations from broadcasting advertisements that name a federal candidate for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. Key to McConnell v. FEC is the role of MCFL-type corporations.

NRLC General Counsel James Bopp, Jr., represents NRLC and other plaintiffs in the BCRA challenge and is also the attorney for North Carolina Right to Life in the Beaumont case. The Fourth Circuit decision is "a significant expansion of the ability of nonprofit corporations to engage in political activity," he said.

"The ability of such corporations to do independent expenditures has long been recognized," Bopp noted, "but now it is clear that they can also make direct political contributions, subject to the $1,000 contribution limit."

Perhaps more importantly, he added, "this case will provide the Supreme Court an opportunity to answer the question whether nonprofit advocacy groups are entitled to full participation in our political process."

"Whether it's the prohibition on contributions to candidates in Beaumont or BCRA's 60-day blackout period, the issue is the same--the role of citizen groups in our democracy," Bopp said. "Since the First Amendment was designed to protect citizen groups from restrictions intended to benefit incumbent politicians, these restrictions should fall."