The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case that could give rich people more influence over politics.
But the justices signaled Monday morning that they want to keep some limits on how much cash corporations can give to the people who make laws in the United States.
The Supreme Court decided not to hear a case that could have done away with the longstanding ban on corporations' direct donations to political candidates, SCOTUSBlog reported.
The high court's decision not to hear a case doesn't usually make big news, but election law expert Rick Hasen says in his Election Law Blog that campaign contribution reform advocates really "dodged a bullet" Monday morning.
"The decision not to hear the case is significant, because it means the Supreme Court majority, which has shown hostility to campaign finance limits, has decided not to move as aggressively as it could in further deregulating the campaign finance system," Hasen writes.
The case involved William Danielczyk, a CEO who was indicted for allegedly funneling money to Hillary Clinton's campaigns and who wanted the high court to do away with the ban on direct corporate donations.
Danielczyk said the direct contributions that got him in trouble were essentially the same as the indirect contributions allowed under the high court's controversial 2010 decision in Citizen United.
In Citizens United, the Supreme Court found the First Amendment gave corporations the right to spend freely on political campaigns — as long as they don't give directly to candidates.
Monday's decision not to hear Danielczyk's case means there are some limits on corporations' constitutional rights.
SEE ALSO: Huge Supreme Court Case Could Change Everything About Rich People And Politics
Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »
