Legal News

Supreme Court Holds “Pay to Play” is Fair Play
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court judgment that held New York City’s “pay to play” anti-corruption campaign finance rules did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s free speech rights. The judgment sought to be reviewed was made in December by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, the Court of Appeals held that the city’s rules that prohibited corporate contributions to political campaigns, and that required candidates to disclose all contributions from individuals and organizations that do business with the city were justified for preventing corruption.

The appeal came from a lawsuit against the city filed by New York Republican politician Tom Ognibene and others, who argued that the city’s law requiring disclosure of contributions in political campaigns was overruled by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

However, the appeals court held otherwise and ruled that the Citizens United decision was not applicable to contributions limits. Ognibene appealed but the Supreme Court denied his motion for a Certiorari.

  
What
Where


On the same day, the Supreme Court also reversed a Montana ruling that relied on Citizens United and limited business political campaign spending. After Citizens United, independent spending is starting to dwarf campaign spending. According to the lawyer of Ognibene, the decision of the court made it clear that the only way to “level the playing field” for candidates is to raise their limits as well.

Jane Gordon of the New York City Law Department said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision “underscores the importance of reasonable and effective campaign finance reforms…. The city’s highly regarded Campaign Finance Law addresses a significant governmental interest in reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

The case is Ognibene et al v. Parkes et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1153.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!






 

RELEVANT JOBS

DEPUTY STAFF COUNSEL / ATTORNEY

USA-CA-Auburn

JOIN OUR OUTSTANDING TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS! DEPUTY STAFF COUNSEL / ATTORNEY $129,615 - $165,42...

Apply now

Associate Attorney

USA-CA-Rohnert Park

Zimmerman Pavone LLP is looking for an attorney admitted to practice in California who is inter...

Apply now

Labor & Employment Partner in Houston, Austin or Dallas (Work From Home)

USA-TX-Houston

Culhane Meadows PLLC, one of the largest non-traditional distributed law firms in the country, ...

Apply now

Labor & Employment Group partner in Dallas, Austin or Houston (Work From Home)

USA-TX-Dallas

Culhane Meadows PLLC, one of the largest non-traditional distributed law firms in the country, is...

Apply now

BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Personal Injury Litigator

USA-VA-Fairfax

Northern Virginia office of our client is seeking a personal injury litigator with 4+ years of stron...

Apply Now

Associate Attorney

USA-CA-Larkspur

Larkspur office of our client seeks an associate attorney with 4-6 years of experience/background pr...

Apply Now

Associate Attorney

USA-MI-Bloomfield Hills

Bloomfield Hills office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an associate attorney wit...

Apply Now

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top