First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time.

The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns.

In 1976 several corporations, including the First National Bank of Boston, were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum regarding tax policy and subsequently sued.

[5][9][10] The Court, introducing the concept of spending money as a form of unrestricted political speech, overturned limits on campaign expenditures.

[13] Main issues addressed during oral arguments included corporations as persons, the scope of freedom of speech, and the power of the states.

[13][16] The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed briefs of amici curiae supporting a reversal of the lower courts' ruling.

'"[21] The majority opinion asserted that "the inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.

[41] Chief Justice Burger, wrote a separate concurring opinion in order "to raise some questions likely to arise in this area in the future.

[43] He also pointed out that media conglomerates were a more likely threat than the appellants to the public interests raised by the state of Massachusetts, due to their immense influence.

"[48] Specifically, White claimed that "the state had a first amendment interest in 'assuring that shareholders are not compelled to support and financially further beliefs with which they disagree.

[51] White noted that the nation had a history of recognizing the need to limit the influence of corporations in the political process, citing United States v. Auto Workers, in which the Court held that the primary purpose of a federal act was "to avoid the deleterious influences on federal elections resulting from the use of money by those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital.

[59] In 2010, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned Austin and returned to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that "the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker's corporate identity.

[65] The dissent in the Austin case cited the statement in Bellotti that "the legislature is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.

"[66][67][68] The dissent found that Massachusetts's law discriminated on the basis of the speaker's identity, and argued that the precedents of the Supreme Court, such as Bellotti, condemn this type of censorship.

[66][69] Scholars agree that the Austin decision was inconsistent with precedent in that the Court had previously never upheld a statue that regulated corporate independent expenditure because of a state interest in preventing corruption.

[68][70][71][72] In 2002, the Supreme Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission upheld the two major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which were the bans on unrestricted "soft money" donations to political parties and on electioneering communications, which are defined as any broadcast that refers to a federal candidate and is aired within a designated time frame of that candidate's election.

[75][76] The majority accepted legislative judgment that corporate treasuries represent a threat of corruption when deployed directly in candidate elections.

[78][79] They argued that this conclusion opposed the First amendment, citing the statement from Bellotti that "the fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it.

[83][84][85] The Court "returned to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity.

"[83][86] The Court argued, "Austin upheld a corporate independent expenditure restriction" by recognizing a "new governmental interest" in preventing corruption to "bypass Buckley and Bellotti.

"[60][89] However, the court reasoned that such bans "would have been unconstitutional under Bellotti's central principle that the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker's corporate identity.

"[60][89] 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.

[91][92] In April 1978, when the Supreme Court decided First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 31 states had laws regulating corporate spending on ballot initiatives.

Universal caps on donations for ballot initiatives as well as specific bans aimed to prevent "undue" corporate influence on referendums were still considered constitutional.

[98] 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.

[102] 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.

[115] First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), referred to by Linda Greenhouse as "the most important Supreme Court case no one's ever heard of," did not elicit a very strong reaction from the media and the public.

[130] Critics condemned Bellotti for increasing the influx of corporate money into elections, claiming that this would drown out smaller voices and candidates.

"[134] Former Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit J. Skelly Wright said that the rulings in both the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and Buckley v. Valeo cases have "given protection to the polluting effect of money in financial campaigns.

[137] In an article in The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse said, "the court's speech-protective instincts appear increasingly to serve a deregulatory agenda.