Back Issues & Abstracts

Note:

Susan Garrison, Remedies—A Private Cause of Action Should Be Implied from the Federal Prohibition Against Corporate Campaign Expenditures. Ash v. Cort (3d Cir. 1974), 53 TEXAS L. REV. 168 (1974).

Corporations are prohibited from making any expenditure in connection with a political office to a candidate, party, campaign committee or organization by 18 U.S.C. 610.  In Ash v. Cort, the Third Circuit held that a civil remedy should be implied for a shareholder/voter who brings a private action under Section 610.  The court found that a private cause of action should be implied because the plaintiff was within the class of persons protected by the statute, and the granting of a private remedy would further the purpose of the statute.  In this note, the author agrees with the holding in Ash, and suggests that the holding could have been strengthened by a more robust effort at distinguishing the facts from those of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers.  Further, the author argues that the court could have done a better job of arguing for the plaintiff’s inclusion in the protected class, and by analogizing the facts of Ash to those of other cases in which a private remedy has been implied for violations of a corrupt practices act.