¹ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).Google Scholar

² See Regulation 2004/2003; of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the Regulations Governing Political Parties at the European Level and the Rules Regarding Their Funding, 2003 O.J. (L 297) 1; Wolfgang W. Mickel & Jan Bergmann, Regelungen für die politischen Parteien, in Handlexikon der Europäischen Union (3d ed. 2005); Otmar Philipp, Statut und Finanzierung europäischer politischer Parteien, in Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht [EuZW] 643 (2003); Hans Herbert von Arnim, Die neue EU-Parteienfinanzierung, 2005 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 247–252.Google Scholar

³ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 892 (2010); Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm. 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, at 428–45 (1963); Kathleen M. Sullivan & Gerald Gunther, Constitutional Law 984 (15th ed. 2004).Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Sullivan & Gunther, supra note 3, at 1424–25; Wright, J. Skelly, Politics and the Constitution: Is Money Speech?, 85 Yale L.J. 1001, 1004–21 (1976).Google Scholar

⁵ Hammel, Andrew, Parteiensponsoring in den USA, in Sponsoring—ein neuer Königsweg der Parteienfinanzierung? 57, 60 (Martin Morlok et al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar

⁶ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 940 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Dietmar Bethge, Parteienrecht in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika 259 (2003); Joseph E. Cantor & L. Paige Whitaker, CRS Report for Congress, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law 1 (2004), available at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/41338.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Bethge, supra note 6, at 259.Google Scholar

⁸ Id. at 252; Hammel, supra note 5, at 60.Google Scholar

⁹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 895; List of Current Federal Election Commission Commissioners, Federal Election Commission, http://www.fec.gov/members/members.shtml (last visited 14 Mar. 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See DVD: Hillary: The Movie (Citizens United 2008) (information available at http://www.hillarythemovie.com).Google Scholar

¹¹ Harmon, Aaron, Hillary: The Movie, Corporate Free Speech or Campaign Finance Corruption?, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y Sidebar 331, 334 (2009).Google Scholar

¹² Commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81 (codified in scattered sections of 2 and 47 U.S.C.).Google Scholar

¹³ Harmon, supra note 11, at 332; cf. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)(A)(II)(bb).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Harmon, supra note 11, at 332; cf. 2 U.S.C. § 441D(d)(2).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Harmon, supra note 11, at 332; cf. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Citizens United v. FEC, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274, 275 (D.D.C. 2008).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The provision prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 919 (2010) (seeing no problem as there is no difference in substance) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). But see id. at 932–36 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Two major procedural issues, i.e., whether a facial challenge was appropriate and the question of stare decisis, will not be discussed here.Google Scholar

²⁰ This is also stated in Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–155, § 203, 116 Stat. 81 (codified in scattered sections of 2 and 47 U.S.C.), which amended the FECA codified in 2 U.S.C. §§ 431–457.Google Scholar

²¹ Hoersting, Stephen M. & Smith, Bradley A., The Caperton Caper and the Kennedy Conundrum, 2009 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 319, 323 (2009); Wright, supra note 4, at 1002.Google Scholar

²² 11 C.F.R. § 1 (1980); 11 C.F.R.§§ 100.29 (a)(2), (b)(3)(ii) (2006).Google Scholar

²³ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 892, 894 (2010). But see id. at 931–38 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. id. at 899; First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978), reh'g denied, Flynn v. Bauman, 438 U.S. 907 (1978); United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2003).Google Scholar

²⁵ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 899.Google Scholar

²⁶ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 900; see also id. at 925 (Scalia, J., concurring); Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 784; Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986).Google Scholar

²⁷ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 898.Google Scholar

²⁸ Id. at 895–96.Google Scholar

²⁹ Id. at 895; cf. Near v. Minnesota (ex rel. Olson), 283 U.S. 697, 712–20 (1931).Google Scholar

³⁰ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 895–96; cf. 2 U.S.C. § 437f (1986); 11 C.F.R. § 112.2 (1980).Google Scholar

³¹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 896; Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003).Google Scholar

³² Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976). Mr. Chief Justice Burger joined in the opinion in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion. Mr. Justice White joined in the opinion in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion. Mr. Justice Marshall joined in the opinion in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion. Mr. Justice Rehnquist joined in the opinion in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion. Mr. Justice Blackmun joined in the opinion in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion.Google Scholar

³³ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 895.Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. at 896–97.Google Scholar

³⁵ Id. at 942–45 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(9)(B)(i), 434(f)(3)(B)(i), 441b(b); 11 C.F.R. §§ 114.1–.15.Google Scholar

³⁶ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 939, 942 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

³⁷ Buckley, 424 U.S. at 23, 29, 45.Google Scholar

³⁸ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 910.Google Scholar

³⁹ Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44; Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 899.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ National banking associations and business corporations brought action to challenge the constitutionality of a Massachusetts criminal statute that prohibited business corporations from making contributions or expenditures to influence the outcome of a vote on any question submitted to voters other than questions materially affecting the property, business or assets of the corporation. Mr. Chief Justice Burger filed a concurring opinion. Mr. Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall joined. Mr. Justice Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion.Google Scholar

⁴¹ First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784–86 (1978), reh'g denied, Flynn v. Bauman, 438 U.S. 907 (1978).Google Scholar

⁴² Emanuel, Steven L., Constitutional Law 571 (19th ed. 2001).Google Scholar

⁴³ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 958 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Id. at 903 (majority opinion).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 695 (1990); Justice Brennan filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor joined; Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 903.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 958 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Harmon, supra note 11, at 337–38.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 206 (2003), Justice Scalia concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion. Justice Thomas concurred in part, concurred in the result in part, concurred in the judgment in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion in which Justice Scalia joined in part. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment in part, dissented in part, and filed an opinion in which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in part. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented in part and filed an opinion in which Justices Scalia and Kennedy joined.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 898; FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 464 (2007); William J. Rinner, Maximizing Participation through Campaign Finance Regulation: A Cap and Trade Mechanism for Political Money, 119 Yale L.J. 1060, 1070 (2010); Sullivan & Gunther, supra note 3, at 1427–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 888–89.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 904–908; this interest contradicted the holding of Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and therefore had to be considered, see Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 904.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 908; Laurence Tribe, Laurence Tribe on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Harvard Law School (25 Jan. 2010), http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/constitutional-law/related/tribe.on.citizens.united.html.Google Scholar

⁵² Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48–49; Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 904; First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777 (1978), reh'g denied, Flynn v. Bauman, 438 U.S. 907 (1978); United States v. Cong. of Indus. Orgs., 335 U.S. 106, 154 (1948); United States v. Int'l Union United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 352 U.S. 567, 597 (1957).Google Scholar

⁵³ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 912; but see FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 162 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 973; N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 208 (2008).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cf. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 974, 976 (Stevens, J., dissenting); see also Hodgson, Godfrey, The Myth of American Exceptionalism 144–50 (2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 930 (Stevens, J., dissenting); Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined this dissent, concurring in part and dissenting in part.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 930, 972 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Lucian Bebchuk, Bebchuk: Corporate Political Speech Is Bad for Shareholders, Harvard Law School (1 Mar. 2010), http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/03/01_bebchuk.html.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 956 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Id. at 972.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Id. at 965, 973.Google Scholar

⁶² Id. at 966.Google Scholar

⁶³ Id. at 966; cf. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ 26 U.S.C. § 527(h) (2003).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at 2257; the Court found that under circumstances where defendant had helped the judge to be elected, the judge has a duty to recuse himself from a case as a matter of due process. Justice Kennedy filed the opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Justice Roberts dissented joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 161 (2003).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) (students); Jones v. N.C. Prisoners’ Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 129 (1979) (prisoners); members of the Armed Forces: Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974) (members of the Armed Forces).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, at 263–65 (1986); Justice O'Connor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Rehnquist filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice White, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens joined.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 209 (2003).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 947 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. at 948–60.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at 903, 908–11.Google Scholar

⁷³ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 47 (1976); Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 910. But cf. id. at 966 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 908.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Id. at 961 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See also, Lessig, Lawrence, Democracy After Citizens United, Boston Review (Sept./Oct. 2010), http://www.bostonreview.net/BR35.5/lessig.php.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Buckley, 424 U.S. at 45 (1976); First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 788 (1978), reh'g denied, Flynn v. Bauman, 438 U.S. 907 (1978); cf. Lessig, supra note 76.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 911.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Id. at 911.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Id. at 978 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

⁸¹ The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law, Federal Election Commission (Feb. 2011), http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Campaign_Finance_Law.Google Scholar

⁸² Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 980 (Thomas, J., dissenting alone).Google Scholar

⁸³ Id. at 914 (majority opinion); cf. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 196–203, 230–31 (2003).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cf. 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2) (2002).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. § 441d(a)(3).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(1), (2) (2007).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 916; McConnell, 540 U.S. at 198.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 980–82 (Thomas, J., citing Californian precedent); cf. Scott M. Noveck, Campaign Finance Disclosure and the Legislative Process, 47 Harv. J. on Legis. 75, 97–100 (2009).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Id. at 914; cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64, 66 (1976).Google Scholar

⁹² Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 914.Google Scholar

⁹³ Id. at 916.Google Scholar

** (1) A corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party… .Google Scholar

** (4) A person who violates this section is subject to the civil penalty provisions of [§] 13–37-128.Google Scholar

** Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ W. Tradition P'ship v. Attorney Gen. of Mont., 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ W Tradition P'ship, 363 Mont. at 240.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ W Tradition P'ship, 363 Mont. at 22728.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ W Tradition P'ship, 363 Mont. at 230.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ W Tradition P'ship, 363 Mont. at 23536.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 741 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 112930 (D. Minn. 2010); Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1071 (2010); Rinner, supra note 48, at 1064, 1090; Sullivan & Gunther, supra note 3, at 1428; Emanuel, supra note 42, at 576.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Cf. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2) (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Kulitz, Peter, Unternehmerspenden an politische Parteien 114 (1983).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Cf. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, at 897 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Id. at 896–99.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Landfried, Christine, Parteifinanzen und politische Macht: Eine vergleichende Studie zur Bundesrepublik Deutschland, zu Italien und den USA 162, 164 (2d ed. 1994); Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Calling on Corporate Law to Defend Democracy, Boston Review (Sept./Oct. 2010), http://bostonreview.net/BR35.5/torres.php.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Cf. 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(e)(3) (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law, supra note 81.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See also Nassmacher, Karl-Heinz, The Funding of Party Competition: Political Finance in 25 Democracies 251 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, at 897 (2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 225657 (2009); Landfried, supra note 105, at 160; Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 341.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Landfried, supra note 105, at 143.Google Scholar

¹¹² FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 162 (2003); McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 204 (2003).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Hammel, supra note 5, at 61.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Id. at 61.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Cf. 11 CFR § 114.4(e)(3) (2007).Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Hammel, supra note 5, at 61.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Id. at 689, 696.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Id. at 695.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Id. Google Scholar

¹²¹ Id. at 696.Google Scholar

¹²² Id. at 696–98.Google Scholar

¹²³ Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Sullivan & Gunther, supra note 3, at 1428; if they are coordinated with the candidate, they are considered to be contributions. Cf. Emanuel, supra note 42, at 568.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Buckley, 424 U.S. 1; see also Rinner, supra note 48, at 1065.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1071 (2010).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Bethge, supra note 6, at 258; Hammel, supra note 5, at 59.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 255.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law, supra note 81.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Hammel, supra note 5, at 84.Google Scholar

¹³² The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law, supra note 81.Google Scholar

¹³³ Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 108385; see also Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 741 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 112930 (D. Minn. 2010). Compare Preston v. Leake, 743 F. Supp. 2d 501, 50809 (E.D.N.C. 2010), in which the District Court found that the strict scrutiny test applied in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), to limits on independent expenditures cannot be extended to contributions as well.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Thalheimer, 706 F. Supp. 2d, at 1084, as it had been overruled by the Court in Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. 876.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Thalheimer, 706 F. Supp. 2d, at 1084.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Lawrence Lessig, The Democrats’ Response to Citizens United: Not (Even Close To) Good Enough, The Huffington Post (10 Feb. 2010), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-democrats-response-to_b_462412.html.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See also, Edwards, Donna F., A Call to Bold Action, Boston Review (Sept./Oct. 2010), http://bostonreview.net/BR35.5/edwards.php; Lessig, supra note 76; Marvin Ammori, Corruption Economy, Boston Review (Sept./Oct. 2010), http://bostonreview.net/BR35.5/ammori.php.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 940 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundgesetz] [GG] [Basic Law] art. 21, 23 May 1949, BGBl. I (Ger.):Google Scholar

** [Political parties]Google Scholar

** (1) Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds.Google Scholar

** (2) Parties that, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany shall be unconstitutional. The Federal Constitutional Court shall rule on the question of unconstitutionality.Google Scholar

** (3) Details shall be regulated by federal laws.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Morlok, Martin, Art. 21, in Grundgesetz: Kommentar, para. 19 (Horst Dreier ed., 2d ed., bd. 2 (arts. 2082), 2009); Bodo Pieroth, Art. 21, in Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Kommentar, para. 3 (Hans D. Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 11th ed. 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 27; Pieroth, supra note 140, at para. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 21; Pieroth, supra note 140, at para. 15; Hans Klein, Art. 21, in Grundgesetz: Loseblatt-Kommentar, para. 155 (Theodor Maunz & Günter Dürig eds., 56th ed. 2009).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Morlok, Martin, Spenden, Rechenschaft, Sanktione: Aktuelle Rechtsfragen der Parteienfinanzierung, 2000 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 761, 763; Hans Herbert von Arnim, Parteienfinanzierung: Zwischen Notwendigkeit und Missbrauch: Alte Probleme und neue Entwicklungen, 2003 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht [NVwZ] 1076, 1077.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Compare GG art. 21(1), cl. 1, and Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl. I] at 149, art. 1(2) (Ger.), available at http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/ParteienG.htm#2:Google Scholar

** Article 1. Constitutional Status and Functions of the Parties …Google Scholar

** (2) The parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people in all fields of public life, in particular by: Bringing their influence to bear on the shaping of public opinion; inspiring and furthering political education; promoting an active participation by individual citizens in political life; training talented people to assume public responsibilities; participating in Federal, Land and Local Government elections by nominating candidates; exercising an influence on political trends in parliament and the government; initiating their defined political aims in the national decision-making processes; and ensuring continuous, vital links between the people and the public authorities.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Compare GG art. 21(1), S. 4, and, Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, arts. 24, 25. The latter deal with a duty for political parties to file a statement of income and expenditures as well as regulations for accepting donations.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/57 (Party Financing I), 24 June 1958, Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 8 (51), 63–71 (Ger.); cf. GG arts. 3(1), 21(1); Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/65 (Party Financing II), 19 July 1966, BVerfGE 20 (56), 101 (Ger.); Christoph Gröpl, Staatsrecht I, Staatsgrundlagen Staatsorganisation § 6, para. 416 (2d ed. 2009); Kulitz, supra note 102, at 59–61; cf. GG art. 21(1), S. 2 & art. 21(2).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 383/03 (Party Financing X), 17 June 2004, BVerfGE 111 (54), 83 (Ger.); Gröpl, supra note 147, § 6, at para. 417.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ The Flick-scandal describes a huge political scandal that was revealed in Germany in the 1980s. The Flick concern had donated money to political parties and had hidden this fact from the public. It was assumed that these donations led to a favorable decision of the Department of Commerce.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 27(1), S. 2; Schwarz, § 18, in Parteiengesetz (PartG) und Europäisches Parteienrecht, para. 16 (Jens Kersten & Stephan Rixen eds., 2009); Klein, supra note 142, at para. 407.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2/89 (Party Financing VII), 9 Apr. 1992, BVerfGE 85 (264), 285-95 (Ger.); Klein, supra note 142, at para. 479; Inge Wettig-Danielmeier, Hans Feldmann & Klaus Wettig, Handbuch Zur Parteienfinanzierung 10 (2d ed. 1997).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 43; Hans Herbert von Arnim, Parteien in der Kritik, 2007 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung [DÖV] 221, 224; cf. Günter Olzog & Hans-J. Liese, Die politischen Parteien in Deutschland: Geschichte, Programmatik, Organisation, Personen, Finanzierung 38 (21st ed. 1992); cf. Uwe Schleth, Parteifinanzen, Eine Studie über Kosten und Finanzierung der Parteientätigket, zu deren politischer Problematik und zu den Möglichkeiten einer Reform 300, 300-26 (1973).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/57 (Party Financing I), 24 June 1958, BVerfGE 8 (51), 65–71 (Ger.); Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/65 (Party Financing II), 19 July 1966, BVerfGE 20 (56), 97–112, 113–119 (Ger.);Google Scholar

** Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case Nos. 2 BvE 2/84 & 2 BvR 442/84 (Party Financing V & Party Contributions III), 14 July 1986, BVerfGE 73 (40) (Ger.).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Klein, supra note 142, at para. 460.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2/89 (Party Financing VII), 9 Apr. 1992, BVerfGE 85 (264), 315 (Ger.).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Id. at 312315; Klein, supra note 142, at para. 451.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See also Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 228.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Einkommensteuergesetz [EStG] [Income Tax Law Act], § 10b(2), 16 Oct. 1934, available at Juris.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Sendler, Horst, Verfassungsgemäβe Parteienfinanzierung?, 1994 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 365, 366.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Members of parliament are being paid for their democratic work. A part of this “wage” can be given to the party. This is normally agreed upon by the member of parliament and the party. Contributions on the other hand are completely voluntary regarding the decision to contribute and the amount that is donated.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 270.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Kersten, Jens, § 25, in Parteiengesetz (PartG) und Europäisches Parteienrecht, supra note 150, at para. 12. For the content of Art. 21 GG, compare supra note 139.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvF 1/57 (Party Financing I), 24 June 1958, BVerfGE 8 (51), 65–71 (Ger.); Jörn Ipsen, Art. 21, in Grundgesetz: GG: Kommentar, paras. 116-17 (Michael Sachs ed., 6th ed. 2011). The decision of the BVerfG dealt with tax benefits; it did not consider advertisements made by corporations.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Arnim, Von, supra note 143, at 1076, 1077; cf. GG art. 38(1); see Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 558 (1964), for explanation of the doctrine.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], WM 2002, 564 (566) (Ger.); Sandra Kind, Darf der Vorstand einer AG Spenden an politische Parteien vergeben?, 2000 Neue Zeitschrift für Gesellschaftsrecht [NZG] 567, 567–70, 573; Franz Jürgen Säcker, Gesetzliche und satzungsmäβige Grenzen für Spenden und Sponsoringmaβnahmen in der Kapitalgesellschaft, 2009 Betriebsberater [BB] 282.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Kind, supra note 166, at 567, 570-73; cf. Aktiengesetz [AktG] [Stock Corporation Act], § 111(4), S. 2, § 142(1), § 58(3), S. 2, § 131(1), 6 Sept. 1965, available at Juris; Gesetz betreffend die Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung [GmbHG] [Limited Liability Companies Act], § 51a, 20 Apr. 1892, available at Juris.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Aktiengesetz [AktG] [Stock Corporation Act], § 93(2), 6 Sept. 1965, available at Juris.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Doris Werthmüller, Parteienfinanzierung und Spendenpraxis, Dargestellt am Beispiel des gescheiterten Gesetzesvorhaben zur Amnestie von Straftaten im Zusammenhang mit Spenden an politische Parteien 31 (1990).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Ipsen, Jörn, Parteiensponsoring als Spende?, in Sponsoring—ein neuer Königsweg der Parteienfinanzierung? 93 (Martin Morlok, Ulrich von Alemann & Thilo Streit eds., 2006); Klein, supra note 142, at para. 465.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 383/03 (Party Financing X), 17 June 2004, BVerfGE 111 (54), 83 (Ger.); Kulitz, supra note 102, at 66.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Cf. Rixen, Stephan, § 24, in Parteiengesetz (PartG) und Europäisches Parteienrecht, supra note 150, at para. 37; Kulitz, supra note 102, at 66; Klein, supra note 142, at para. 473; Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 23(1), S. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Klein, supra note 142, at para. 417.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 24(1), S. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, arts. 24(8), 25(3), S. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Burkhard Küstermann, Das Transparenzgebot des Art. 21 Abs. 1 Satz 4 GG und seine Ausgestaltung durch das Parteiengesetz 161 (2004).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 19a(3) S. 1.; Morlok, supra note 143, at 761, 766; Hans Herbert von Arnim, Grundfragen der Parteienfinanzierung, in 40 Jahre Parteiengesetz: Symposium im Deutschen Bundestag, 35, 42 (Jörn Ipsen ed., vol. 3, 2009).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 23(2).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 23a(1).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, arts. 31a31d.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Küstermann, supra note 176, at 241–42.Google Scholar

¹⁸² Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], WM 2002, 564 (566) (Ger.); Küstermann, supra note 176, at 138; Martin Morlok, Sponsoring—ein neuer Königsweg der Parteienfinanzierung?, in Sponsoring—ein neuer Königsweg der Parteienfinanzierung?, supra note 5, at 9, 11–13.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Sebastian Roßner, Politiksponsoring in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in Sponsoring—ein neuer Königsweg der Parteienfinanzierung?, supra note 5, at 69, 75.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Morlok, supra note 182, at 9, 14; cf. Einkommensteuergesetz [EStG] [Income Tax Law Act], § 4(6), 16 Oct. 1934.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Morlok, supra note 182, at 9, 13; Roßner, supra note 183, at 69, 76; cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 24(4), no. 5.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Roßner, supra note 183, at 69, 79.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Morlok, supra note 182, at 9, 19.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 101; Roßner, supra note 183, at 69, 79.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Arnim, Von, supra note 177, at 35, 43.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 102.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Cf. Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 26(1), S. 2, 2. HS (half sentence).Google Scholar

¹⁹² Roßner, supra note 183, at 69, 79.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Compare the Watergate scandal in the U.S., Kulitz, supra note 102, at 115; Landfried, supra note 105, at 149–54, 203; Wright, supra note 4, at 1001, 1003; with the Flick scandal in Germany, Hans Werner Kilz & Joachim Preuß, Flick. Die gekaufte Republik 91–312 (1983); Dieter Spöri, Sponsoring von Parteien: Hört endlich auf mit der Mauschelei!, Stern.de (1 Mar. 2010), http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/sponsoring-von-parteien-hoert-endlich-auf-mit-der-mauschelei-1547365.html, climaxing in the resignation of German President Christian Wulff on 17 February 2012.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 107; Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 255.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Nassmacher, Karl-Heinz, Bürger finanzieren Wahlkämpfe: Anregungen aus Nordamerika für die Parteienfinanzierung in Deutschland 76 (1992).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Hay, Peter, US-Amerikanisches Recht 2122 (4th ed. 2008); Landfried, supra note 105, at 125; Schleth, supra note 153, at 285.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 108; Landfried, supra note 105, at 125, 237; Schleth, supra note 153, at 298–300.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Cf. Landfried, supra note 105, at 136–38.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 900 (2010); United States v. Int'l Union United Auto., Aircraft & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 352 U.S. 567, 570–72; Kulitz, supra note 102, at 109.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Cf. International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 352 U.S. at 572; Schleth, supra note 153, at 301; also Hammel, supra note 5, at 58.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 952 (Stevens, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

²⁰² Kilz & Preuß, supra note 193, at 13–41; Olzog & Liese, supra note 153, at 38.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 64–65.Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ Id. at 42; Schleth, supra note 153, at 306, 315.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Werthmüller, supra note 169, at 31.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Cf. Landfried, supra note105, at 77; The $3 Tax Checkoff, FEC (Dec. 1993), http://www.fec.gov/info/checkoff.htm.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 167–71; Schleth, supra note 153, at 285.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Landfried, supra note 105, at 296.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Nassmacher, supra note 108, at 168.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Landfried, supra note 105, at 297.Google Scholar

²¹¹ Cf. GG art. 93(1), cl. 4a; Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 48; Pieroth, supra note 140, at paras. 3, 17.Google Scholar

²¹² Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 49.Google Scholar

²¹³ Hay, supra note 196, at 18–19.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Cf. GG art. 79(3); Morlok, supra note 140, at para. 19.Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Pieroth,supra note 140, at para. 28.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Klein, supra note 142, at para. 422.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Kulitz, supra note 102, at 67.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Dübbers, Robert, Ad-hoc-Rechenschaftspflicht für Spenden an politische Parteien, 2000 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik [ZRP] 481, 481–483.Google Scholar

²¹⁹ Gruson, Michael & Wiegmann, William J., Die Ad-hoc-Publizitätspflicht von Unternehmen nach amerikanischem Recht und die Auslegung von § 15 WpHG, available at http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/ifawz1/baums/Bilder_und_Daten/Arbeitspapiere/a0295.pdf (2010).Google Scholar

²²⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvE 2/89 (Party Financing VII), 9 Apr. 1992, BVerfGE 85 (264), 320-21 (Ger.); Küstermann, supra note 176, at 121; Klein, supra note 142, at para. 420; cf Gesetz über die politischen Parteien [PartG], 31 Jan. 1994, BGBl I at 149, art. 26(1). S. 1; U.S.: Citizens’ Guide, FEC (Feb. 2011), http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml.Google Scholar

²²¹ Cf. Kinkel, Lutz, Konsequenzen aus Wulff-Affäre: Schluss mit Bussi-Bussi, Stern.de (21 Feb. 2012), http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/konsequenzen-aus-wulff-affaere-schluss-mit-bussi-bussi-1789861.html; Parteienfinanzierung: FDP-Minister Niebel lobt das Sponsoring, Stern.de (1 Mar. 2010), http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/parteienfinanzierung-fdp-minister-niebel-lobt-das-sponsoring-1547404.html; Theresa Breuer & Hans Peter Schütz, Sponsoring-Affäre: Wie der Bundestag die Debatte vergeigt, Stern.de (4 Mar. 2010), http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/sponsoring-affaere-wie-der-bundestag-die-debatte-vergeigt-1548353.html; Sponsoring-Affäre: Opposition fordert Strafen für die CDU, Stern.de (4 Mar. 2010), http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/sponsoring-affaere-opposition-fordert-strafen-fuer-die-cdu-1548361.html.Google Scholar

²²² Schleth, supra note 153, at 319.Google Scholar

²²³ Cf. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 737-42 (2008); Edward B. Foley, Equal-Dollars-Per-Voter: A Constitutional Principle of Campaign Finance, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 1204 (1994); Rinner, supra note 48, at 1066–72.Google Scholar

²²⁴ Foley, supra note 223, at 1257; Noveck, supra note 89, at 75, 78; Spöri, supra note 193.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Cf. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 904; Sullivan & Gunther, supra note 3, at 1428.Google Scholar

²²⁶ Rinner, supra note 48, at 1099–1104.Google Scholar

²²⁷ Id. at 1100–1104.Google Scholar

²²⁸ The Fair Elections Now-Act, see Public Campaign: Clean Money, Clean Elections, available at http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 (last visited 16 Mar. 2012); Jonathan Alter, High-Court Hypocrisy: Dick Durbin's Got a Good Idea, Newsweek, 22 Jan. 2010, available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/22/high-court-hypocrisy.html; cf. Edwards, supra note 137, who fears that the Act is being threatened by Citizens United.Google Scholar