In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments can restrict the right of businesses to make independent expenditures on behalf of political candidates. The Austin Court formulated a new constitutional standard for evaluating campaign finance regulations. Such regulation, according to the Court, is constitutionally justified because of the distorting effects of corporate wealth on the marketplace of ideas. The Court's decision to allow regulation on the basis of a speaker's wealth and business standing constitutes a significant departure from previous campaign finance jurisprudence and may well spark efforts to regulate other forms of speech on similar bases. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 1985, leaders of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit corporation, decided to use funds from the House's general treasury to place a newspaper ad urging voters to support a particular candidate in an upcoming special election to the Michigan State House. The ad allegedly violated Michigan campaign finance laws prohibiting the expenditure of corporate funds in candidate elections in the state. Arguing that these restrictions were unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the House filed an injunction action against enforcement of the law in federal district court. The district court upheld the statute, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision on the grounds that the restrictions violated the First Amendment. A divided Supreme Court reversed the appeals court's decision, finding constitutional status under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Marshall, writing for a six-member majority, held that although the law fettered political expression, it was constitutional because it was "narrowly tailored to the promotion of a compelling public interest." State ". Finally, the majority addressed the Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the statute. The Court noted that the same compelling state interests that supported the constitutionality of the law under the First Amendment also applied to any equal protection analysis. Thus, Justice Marshall again rejected arguments that the law's restrictions were under-inclusive by omitting unincorporated associations such as unions. Justice Marshall also rejected arguments that the law's exemption for media organizations violated the Equal Protection Clause. The new contribution and spending limitations, along with other provisions of federal campaign law, were challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo. In Buckley, as explained above, the Court struck down substantial portions of the new regulatory scheme on the grounds that they constituted unconstitutional constraints on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. In particular, the Buckley Court held that while government interests in regulating campaign finance justify limitations on campaign contributions, similar restrictions on independent expenditures do not outweigh individual and societal interests in of freedom of expression and unhindered exchange of political ideas. There.