Danielczyk – “As Applied to This Case Only” Bunk, Etc.

Judge Catcheris says repeatedly in his order and opinion. that his holding of unconstitutionality applies in this case only  What could he possibly mean?

If a corporation made a direct contribution to a candidate in Virginia, could that corporation not defend its actions in reliance on the opinion holding the statute unconstitutional?  How could the law possibly be constitutional as to any other corporation in Virginia under the judge’s ruling?

Elsewhere in the opinion, Judge Cacheris says that there is no worry about his holding allowing  people evading the individual contribution limit because anyone trying to get around the individual limit by giving money through a corporation would be guilty of a conduit contribution.

That can’t be right under the judge’s own logic, because the corporations (through whoever controls them) have a purported constitutional right to direct whatever corporate funds they receive for whatever reason and for whatever purpose is consistent with the corporation’s goals.

Why couldn’t I set up 50 ideological corporations now in Virginia along the following lines? Contribute to these 50 ideological corporations supporting progressive (or tea party) candidates. If you’ve maxed out on your contributions to your favorite candidates, give the money to us, and we’ll contribute it to the candidates directly on our list.  This is our corporation’s mission.

I’ll be interested to hear from others their views on these two points.

UPDATE:  Lyle Denniston offers this analysis.

Share this: