Morgan Stanley is the latest firm to announce that it will not take advantage of a new Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to spend unlimited campaign cash in federal elections, CNBC.com reports.  Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan announced that policy previously, saying they wouln't make direct campaign contributions.  A growing number of companies are following suit, wary of the political risks.  

[C-I Note:  And investment banks are well aware that, in the eyes of a regulator, large campaign contributions can be viewed as a conflict of interest, which could put a firm into the penalty box - and limit its access to municipal underwritings and other financing assignments.]

A spokesperson for Morgan Stanley confirmed the policy and told CNBC it will extend to a ban on participating in so-called 501c(4) nonprofit organizations that have become vehicles for corporations to funnel anonymous contributions to federal candidates. 

Morgan Stanley says it will continue to contribute PAC's, which were legal before the Supreme Court ruling.  So far in this election year, the firm’s PAC has donated $255,500 to federal candidates, 48% to Democrats, 51% to Republicans.  But those funds are subjected to certain caps, and pale in comparison to the unlimited funds the Supreme Court ruling would allow. 

    Court Ruling.   In January, the Court ruled 5-4 to strike down a provision of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law re: issue advertising, holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts can’t be limited under the First Amendment.  The case, “Citizens United v. FEC” involved advertising for a film critical of Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign.  Under McCain-Feingold, the film “Hillary: the Movie” was prohibited from being shown on television within 30 days of the Democratic primary.   [CNBC, 9/27]