A person cannot be sent to jail for donating corporate funds to a candidate, provided the corporation’s contribution meets the same requirements, including a monetary cap, as contributions made by individuals. That’s the decision reached today by federal judge James Cacheris.
To review, Judge Cacheris has reached this decision before. But after numerous commentators noted a Supreme Court case upholding a ban on certain corporate contributions – a case apparently missed by government lawyers in framing their arguments – the court requested reargument. That case is Beaumont v. FEC.
Judge Cacheris ultimately determined that while Beaumont is still good law, it has been “gravely wounded” by Citizens United. Moreover, since Beaumont discussed “nonprofit advocacy corporations,” and the case before his court involved a for-profit corporation, Beaumont did not “directly control” his decision.
Let’s be honest: Judge Cacheris’s distinction is a thin one. The logic of Beaumont clearly extends to contributions by for-profit entities. But it is precisely that logic which was decisively undermined by Citizens United. The Supreme Court simply hasn’t been presented with an opportunity to explicitly overturn Beaumont.
Concerns that a lower court is disregarding Supreme Court precedent are understandable. But Judge Cacheris’s order applies only to the case before him – which would be true in any event, since district courts cannot create binding precedent.
There is another concern we should be talking about: this is a criminal case. Beaumont is likely wrongly decided, in light of Citizens United, but the Supreme Court has yet to have the opportunity to say so. Are we really comfortable with U.S. citizens being sent to jail under a clearly-flawed and “gravely wounded” precedent that most honest observers don’t see surviving a Supreme Court challenge? Should citizens be required to answer with their liberty in this situation, or is Judge Cacheris correct to overrule the prosecutors and require a higher court to revisit the constitutional issue?
As I’ve noted before, this doesn’t end the prosecution – there are another six counts to this indictment, alleging crimes the government may legitimately punish. We should applaud Judge Cacheris for recognizing that an over-zealous prosecution, on an extraneous count of the indictment, under a clearly suspect statute, should not be allowed to go forward.
