In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations can spend freely on political campaigns through independent groups such as "super PACS."
But it's still illegal for corporations to give directly to candidates.
William Danielczyk, who was indicted last year for allegedly funneling money to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, wants to change all that, Reuters' Allison Frankel reports.
The Innolog Holdings CEO recently petitioned the Supreme Court to end a ban on direct contributions to campaigns by corporations.
Danielczyk raised about $180,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008 and her 2006 Senate race. However, many of those checks came from Republicans he allegedly reimbursed, the Wall Street Journal has reported.
Now, he's arguing to the Supreme Court that the direct campaign donations that got him in trouble are essentially the same as the indirect donations allowed under Citizens United.
Frankel writes:
The bar on direct corporate giving was intended to prevent businesses from corrupting the political process, yet according to Danielczyk, the risk of corruption is no more severe through direct corporate contributions than it is through the independent expenditures (or gifts from wealthy individuals) that the Supreme Court sanctioned in Citizens United.
SEE ALSO: Montana Voters Overwhelmingly Said Corporations Aren't People >
Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.
Join the conversation about this story »
