User:Ani alys/sandbox

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), was 1978 Supreme Court case in which the court decided that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved. In 1976, when several corporations, including the First National Bank of Boston, were barred from contributing to a referendum regarding tax policy, they appealed to the Supreme Court. In November 1977, the Supreme Court heard arguments, and in April 1978, they ruled 5-4 against the Massachusetts law. States could no longer impose specific regulations on donations from corporations or labor unions, and in response several states changed their campaign finance laws. While the Bellotti decision did not directly affect federal law, it has been cited by other Supreme Court cases such as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Effects on Legislation
While the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ruling set a precedent for allowing corporate spending in elections, it did not directly lead to federal campaign law changes because of its narrow focus. The Bellotti decision was focused on state referenda not the election of candidates.

In April 1978, when the Supreme Court decided on the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti case, 31 states had laws regulating corporate spending on ballot initiatives. However, not all of these state laws were annulled by the Supreme Court ruling. Universal caps on donations for ballot initiatives as well as specific bans aimed to prevent "undue" corporate influence on referenda were still considered constitutional. Of these 31 states, 18 of them, including Massachusetts, had laws that would be considered unconstitutional after the Bellotti decision.

In the aftermath of Bellotti, several states changed their laws relating to spending on referenda. In 1981, Iowa's state legislature updated their campaign finance laws to state, "“It is unlawful for any insurance company, savings and loan association, bank, and or corporation… to contribute any money, property, labor, or thing of value, directly or indirectly, to any committee, or for the purpose of influencing the vote of any elector, except that such resources may be so expended in connection with a ballot issue, however all such expenditures are subject to the disclosure requirements of this chapter.”"

Montana had previously banned all corporate donations for or against ballot issues. In October of 1978, this law was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit using First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.

On December 23rd, 1986 the General Court of Massachusetts approved a series of changes to its campaign finance laws, and only then officially changed the law governing corporate spending on ballot initiatives. In “An Act Further Regulating Political Campaign Financing,” the General Court stated that they were “striking out” Chapter 55, Section 8, the law annulled by the Bellotti decision. Furthermore, a new §8 law was written that in part stated, "“No person or persons, no political committee, and no person acting under the authority of a political committee, or in its behalf, other than a political committee organized on behalf of a ballot question campaign…shall solicit or receive from such corporation or such holders of stock any gift, payment, expenditure, contribution or promise to give, pay, expend or contribute for any such purpose.”"

Effects on Referenda
Scholars are split on whether the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti decision has had an overall effect on the ballot initiative process. Some scholars believe that with out any regulations on corporate spending on ballot initiatives, corporations have the potential to donate much more on these campaigns than individuals or citizens groups. Due to this advantage, some scholars maintain that corporations have undue sway over referendum and thus policy outcomes. One such way corporations can use money to sway voters is through advertising and spreading information about propositions. For example, a California ballot initiative, Proposition 37 from 2012, attracted a disproportionately high level of spending from corporations. The proposition would mandate that all foods containing genetically modified organisms would have to be labeled as such. Corporations including Monsanto and DuPont spent $45 million dollars against Prop 37, which was five times more than the money spent by supporters of the proposition. The proposition was defeated by a margin of 51% to 48%, a result that left many pro-Prop 37 groups blaming unfair financing as the reason for the defeat.

Still, other political scientists disagree and believe there is no definitive evidence that links corporation donations to referendum results. For example in California, the campaign around Proposition 188, a ballot initiative that aimed to curb bans on smoking, is another example of unequal spending between corporations and others. Businesses spent over $19,000,000 in favor of Prop 188, while non-businesses spent less than $2,000,000 in opposition. Nonetheless, in this case, voters ultimately voted against Proposition 188. Similarly, the gambling industry in California has spent tens of millions of dollars since 1912 on referendums regarding gambling rules. However, in this time period, only 25% of the referendums they supported monetarily were passed.