When it comes to campaign finance in Pennsylvania, almost anything goes.
The Wild, Wild West climate in the nation’s sixth-largest state permits individual donations of any amount to a candidate for state or local office.
In 2002 for example, 53 individuals donated $100,000 or more to Gov. Rendell’s campaign, which raised a total of $42 million, still a Pennsylvania record. Federal law, by contrast, limits individual donations to $5,000 in elections for Congress and president.
But one thing that Pennsylvania’s loosey-goosey law does prohibit is spending on behalf of candidates by corporations and labor unions.
Part of the ban on corporate spending – and probably on union spending, too – could be trimmed as a result of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The ruling applied directly to federal races, but analysts said it opened the door for legal challenges to laws in Pennsylvania and 23 other states that bar corporations from advocating election of a particular candidate, typically in TV ads.
Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts, a court watchdog group, predicted that yesterday’s decision would ultimately “open the floodgates to direct corporate and union spending in statewide judicial elections.”
In New Jersey, the ruling is less likely to affect state law, said Jeff Brindle, executive director of the Election Law Enforcement Commission.
New Jersey already allows corporations and unions to support candidates. Contributions are limited to $3,400 for a candidate for governor and $2,600 for a legislative candidate – a ceiling that applies to both individuals and corporations.
The Supreme Court ruling isn’t likely to overturn Pennsylvania’s ban on direct corporate donations to a candidate, analysts said. But it will allow a corporation to go out on its own and support a candidate.
The only thing a corporation won’t be able to do is coordinate its ads with the candidate’s.
Gregory Harvey, a Philadelphia election lawyer, noted that the Pennsylvania law against corporate spending already had been stretched by a 2007 court case. The case was handled by State Attorney General Tom Corbett, now a candidate for governor.
Corbett, in a consent order, agreed that independent expenditures by corporations would be permitted in Pennsylvania as long as the corporation’s ads didn’t use words such as vote for orvote against when it came to a candidate.
“That has cut back the law in Pennsylvania considerably,” Harvey said.
Under rules laid down yesterday by the Supreme Court, corporations will be able to use vote foror vote against, he said.
Read the full Inquirer article here
Loading ...
