SCOTUS ruling on ‘Hillary: The Movie’ case could open up corporate spending in Minnesota elections

Minnesota will likely be affected by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down this morning that allows corporate spending in elections.

The high court ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to ban corporations from spending money to influence elections. The ruling also applies to labor unions and other organizations.

Hamline University professor David Schultz said the ruling won’t undo the ban on direct contributions to candidate campaigns in Minnesota.

But it will likely allow corporations and unions to do unlimited independent spending.

“What it will affect potentially in Minnesota are any bans on corporations spending money out of their own bank accounts for issue ads or it’s possible that the corporations could spend directly out of their pockets to say: “‘Vote for Smith or vote against Smith,’” Schultz said.

Schultz said the ruling could invalidate or prompt a challenge to Minnesota laws against corporate political action committees.

The high court’s majority ruled in the so-called “Hillary: The Movie” case that the First Amendment protects spending from corporations as a matter of free speech.

The case concerns the conservative Citizens United group that produced a documentary that opposed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary season. A lower court ruled that the film violated the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law because it spent money that tried to influence the outcome of the presidential race.

State Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, said he plans to introduce legislation in response to the decision. Winkler wants to pass disclosure and disclaimer requirements for spending by corporations and special interest groups. He also wants to increase the frequency of campaign finance reporting from candidates.

“Before the 2010 gubernatorial election that will make such as difference for Minnesota’s future, we must enact immediate campaign finance reform when the Legislature reconvenes in February,” Winkler said.

Schultz said state lawmakers can’t put limits on expenditures. But lawmakers could consider requiring real-time disclosure of spending. They could also look at requiring Minnesota organizations to get shareholder or union member approval of spending.

“For state races this probably frees up corporations to spend in ways that they haven’t spent before. Obviously it will be more money in the system and for the consumer it will mean more ads on radio and television,” Schultz said.

Update: Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure [CFPD] Board Executive Director Gary Goldsmith said the Minnesota statute that deals with corporate political money is Chapter 211B.15. Assuming the Citizens United ruling is applied to the states, the provision in state law is now unconstitutional, Goldsmith said. He said he didn’t know what sort of formal declaration is required. One route could be a lawsuit to strike down the law, he said. Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee Chairwoman Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, said that the subdivision in 211B.15 that forbids independent expenditures from corporations will need to be repealed if the ruling is applied to the states. That can be accomplished, she said, in one of the four main elections bills that will be heard in her committee in the 2010 legislative session. The CFPD on Feb. 2 will discuss the ruling.