ABSTRACT
In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 US 652, the US Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act requiring corporations to draw from segregated funds for contributions to political candidates. The state argued that such a restriction was necessary to prevent advantages accrued in the economic marketplace from overwhelming the political marketplace. Austin presents a series of interesting questions for understanding concerns about freedom of speech in campaign finance law. Most striking is the majority's rhetorical sleight of hand-resuscitating the concern for "equalization" declared dead in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 yet justifying it with "anticorruption" rationale. The majority concluded, where vast amounts of money could tend to distort or corrupt the political system, the state had the prerogative to enact such regulations to preserve the integrity of its electoral process.
