Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A Solution Looking for a Problem: Testimony before the 2010 Maryland General Assembly on Senate Bill 570/House Bill 986: Campaign Materials – Stockholder Approval

By Larry S. Gibson


The U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech federal statutory limitations on corporate political expenditures. Before Citizens United, Maryland was already among the 26 states that permitted corporations to make direct political contributions and to make independent political expenditures. Consequently, Citizens United did not change Maryland election law and practice. The Maryland General Assembly has steadfastly resisted efforts to change the Maryland approach. Over the past several years, the General Assembly has repeatedly rejected bills that would have banned political contributions by business entities. Many in the General Assembly have believed that transparency is enhanced by having political funds pass through the hands of candidates and treasurers of registered campaign finance entities, rather than being funneled through 527s, advertisements, lobbying, and other less transparent efforts...

Topics: Election law, Elections, Voting, Campaign materials, Advertising, Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission, Political campaigns, Fundraising, American Politics, Constitutional Law, Law
Publisher: DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law
Year: 2010
OAI identifier:
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.