The US Supreme Court [official website] affirmed [order list, PDF] the judgment in Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission [docket] in a summary disposition on Monday. The case revolved [SCOTUSblog materials] around whether Congress may require organizations engaged in policy issues and unconnected to campaigns, to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] and publicly disclose their donors pursuant to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 [act, PDF]. The Independence Institute [advocate website] wanted to run an ad in support of a bill that would give federal judges discretion for sentencing of non-violent crimes. In their advertisement, they mentioned the name of a sitting senator and were therefore qualified as an “electioneering communication.” Under such a designation, the Institute would be required to report to the FEC and disclose their donors. Upon challenging this provision before the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], the court found in favor [opinion, PDF] of the FEC. With their summary disposition, the justices affirmed the district court’s ruling without discussion.

Political donations and campaign finance [JURIST backgrounder] have been highly litigious issues in the US, especially since the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling [JURIST report] in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] permitting corporations to be considered individuals when contributing to election campaigns, in essence allowing for functionally unlimited donations to political campaigns. Last January the Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] on judicial campaign contributions. In September 2014 the US District Court for the District of Colorado [official website] denied a request [JURIST report] by Citizens United [advocacy website] for a preliminary injunction to allow the conservative organization to air a political documentary without disclosing the film’s advertising donors as required by state law. In April of that year the court ruled [JURIST report] 5-4 in McCutcheon v. FEC [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] that limits on overall campaign contributions by individual donors are unconstitutional. The decision in McCutcheon readdressed the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo [opinion] which ruled that limits on contributions implicate First Amendment interests, but that limits may be imposed so long as they are narrowly drawn to further a compelling governmental interest.