On Tuesday Federal District Court Judge James Cacheris affirmed his recent ruling in U.S. v. Danielczyk et al ending a century-old ban on direct corporate contributions to political candidates. Cacheris struck one of the charges against William Danielczyk, head of the Virginia-based Galen Capital Group, and Eugene Biagi, a fellow executive. The two men are charged with multiple counts of illegally reimbursing people for nearly $200,000 in contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2006 U.S. Senate and 2008 presidential races.
“If human beings can make direct campaign contributions within FECA’s limits without risking quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and if, in Citizens United’s interpretation of Bellotti, corporations and human beings are entitled to equal political speech rights, then corporations must also be able to contribute within FECA’s limits.”
In what looks like a feeble attempt to try and limit the damage the ruling has done, Cacheris attempts to foster the bizarre notion that his ruling applies only to the company involved in the case before him. He concluded:
“For these reasons, the Court will deny reconsideration
except to clarify its May 26, 2011 ruling to state that 2 U.S.C.
§ 441b (a)'s flat ban on direct corporate contributions to political campaigns is unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances of this case, as opposed to being unconstitutional as applied to all corporate donations.”
The government’s next step would be to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond.