Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Donation Ban
Meanwhile, it lets man whose IQ is too low to execute go
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Feb 25, 2013 11:33 AM CST
In this Oct. 1, 2012, file photo people wait in line to enter the Supreme Court in Washington at the start of the new term.   (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

(Newser) – The Supreme Court has been notoriously friendly to corporate speech rights, but it today rejected two Hillary Clinton donors' attempt to argue that corporations should be able to donate directly to candidates. William Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi, who are accused of illegally funneling $150,000 of corporate cash into Clinton's 2008 campaign, argued that the transaction should be legal, because corporations have the right to free speech. But the court today refused to take the case, Bloomberg reports, and in so doing declined to expand on the Citizens United decision.

The court rejected several other cases today as well. In one notable case, it refused Virginia's appeal in the case of a man whose IQ was deemed too low to execute, the AP reports. A lower court had ruled that Leon Winston, who was convicted of shooting a pregnant woman in front of her daughters, was mentally disabled, and that his attorneys didn't do enough to try to prove that. For more on another rejected case that made Sonia Sotomayor very angry, click here.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Supreme Court Upholds Corporate Donation Ban is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 18 comments
Feb 25, 2013 8:44 PM CST
These corp friendly Judges were scared off. Good to see public opinion on the right side of this issue.
Feb 25, 2013 1:07 PM CST
"who was convicted of shooting a pregnant woman in front of her daughters" Mentally challenged or not, the punishment should fit the crime.
Feb 25, 2013 12:55 PM CST
Right now, every candidate is getting corporate money though superpacs. So until they can close all the loopholes to keep all corporate cash out of politics. (a pipe dream, i'm well aware.) Then I say MAKE them donate directly. Then at least we can know who's back is going to get scratched down the line.