Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates
Drew Angerer / Getty Photos

The Supreme Court has turned down an opportunity to permit businesses to donate directly to candidates, deviating from a stretch of decisions expanding the "money is free speech" rights of corporate America.

As is routine, the justices made no statement Monday explaining why they decided against hearing the appeal of two family-owned businesses in Massachusetts that challenged the state's prohibition on for-profit companies making campaign donations.


They asked the court to reverse its 2003 decision allowing limits on corporate contributions to candidates, which would have been a significant expansion of the deregulation of campaign financing set in the Citizens United decision nine years ago. That landmark ruling declared that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts on elections so long as money is allocated independently from the candidates.

The two suburban Boston companies, a chain of auto parts stores and a self-storage outfit, were represented by the libertarian Goldwater Institute. They argued the state ban on donations from for-profit corporations to candidates and political committees violated the First Amendment free-speech rights of businesses and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, because the restrictions on businesses' political activity are more stringent than for nonprofit corporations and unions.

All federal candidates are barred from accepting donations directly from corporations, and 22 states also ban corporate contributions to candidates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Read More

‘Selling off the Department of Education for parts’

The Trump administration's shift of K-12 programs to the Department of Labor raises major concerns about the wellbeing of economically disadvantaged students.

(Jessica Christian/The San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images)

‘Selling off the Department of Education for parts’

As The 19th makes plans for 2026, we want to hear from you! Complete our annual survey to let us know your thoughts.
President Donald Trump has taken his most decisive step yet toward dismantling the Department of Education, a move that will have widespread ramifications for vulnerable students and has raised concerns among education leaders and lawmakers who contend that it will create chaos and confusion for families instead of giving them the help they actually need.

His administration announced on Tuesday that it will transfer core agency functions to four other federal offices — news met with fierce criticism by education advocates who questioned its legality and said it is an abandonment of the nation’s students.“

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen

U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on April 07, 2025 in New York City.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Trump 2.0 Policies Clash With Business School Fundamentals, Fortune 500 CEOs Warn

Leaders of universities have expressed shock when actions by Donald Trump and his 2.0 administration officials have gone directly counter to what he and his appointees supposedly learned during their business-related college education. But what do professors know?

I’ve been privileged to teach and serve as a Marketing department head at an Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-accredited institution; only 6% of business schools worldwide have achieved AACSB recognition. As such, one gets to know the multi-year process that third-party evaluators, including corporate executives, use to rigorously examine the curriculum offerings of accounting, economics, finance, marketing, and management—and, subsequently—what principles well-trained business students should exemplify.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people looking at computer screens with data.

A call to rethink AI governance argues that the real danger isn’t what AI might do—but what we’ll fail to do with it. Meet TFWM: The Future We’ll Miss.

Getty Images, Cravetiger

The Future We’ll Miss: Political Inaction Holds Back AI's Benefits

We’re all familiar with the motivating cry of “YOLO” right before you do something on the edge of stupidity and exhilaration.

We’ve all seen the “TL;DR” section that shares the key takeaways from a long article.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pete Hegseth walking in a congressional hallway
Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be defense secretary, and his wife, Jennifer, make their way to a meetin with Sen. Ted Budd on Dec. 2.
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The War against DEI Is Gonna Kill Us

Almost immediately after being sworn in again, President Trump fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a Black man.

Chairman Brown, a F-16 pilot, is the same General who in 2021 spoke directly into the camera for a recruitment commercial and said: “When I’m flying, I put my helmet on, my visor down, my mask up. You don’t know who I am—whether I’m African American, Asian American, Hispanic, White, male, or female. You just know I’m an American Airman, kicking your butt.” He got kicked off his post. The first-ever female Chief of Naval Operations was fired, too.

Keep ReadingShow less