Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Case Background, Dissenting Opinions
Richard H. Austin, Michigan Secretary of State, and Frank J. Kelley, Michigan Attorney General
Michigan Chamber of Commerce
That Section 54(1) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants
Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General of Michigan
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Richard D. McLellan
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia
Date of Decision
27 March 1990
The U.S. Supreme Court found Section 54(1) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act not to be in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce dealt with many important issues regarding state laws to control and regulate political contributions and expenditures from corporations.
- Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- Burke, Thomas F., "The Concept of Corruption in Campaign Finance Law." Constitutional Commentary, spring 1997, pp. 127.
- Levit, Kenneth J. "Campaign Finance Reform." Yale Law Journal, Nov. 1993, pp. 469.
- Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Significance, Women And Children First, Defining "business Necessity", "outright And Explicit" Discrimination
- Arizona v. Fulminante - Significance, Harmless Error And The Supreme Court, New Direction?, The Federal Bureau Of Investigation
- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - Case Background
- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce - Dissenting Opinions
- Other Free Encyclopedias