100 Iowa L. Rev. 1357 (2015)

Download PDF

Abstract

In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission established that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech. Citizens United subjected the federal ban on corporate independent expenditures to strict scrutiny, ultimately holding the ban unconstitutional. This Note argues that courts should also apply strict scrutiny to federal and state bans on corporate contributions because these bans discriminate on the basis of corporate identity, similar to the independent expenditure bans struck down in Citizens United. Even if strict scrutiny reveals that some limits on corporate contributions are necessary, a complete ban is not narrowly tailored to governmental interests and is therefore unconstitutional. Further, as Iowa’s contribution ban exemplifies, many bans in their current form are susceptible to loopholes. To overcome the unconstitutionality of corporate contribution bans and their potential for loopholes, this Note argues that campaign finance disclosure is an ideal alternative for accomplishing the goals of corporate contribution bans.