Beginning of the End for Citizen's United?

Montana is showing courage in the face of the unprecedented mistake that is Citizen's United. The law brought to us by 5 Republicans on the US Supreme Court and that already has had profound consequences for this election cycle may be coming to an end if Montana’s challenge is successful.

'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban

WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.

The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.

That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.

By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.

McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html?1325694288&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

 

That is an entirely legitimate op. Which is why it's been ignored so far. Mention Obama more, that he's the best President ever or whatever, and then you'll get some responses.

Corporations shouldn't be allowed to raise money for any candidates. It's a practice that is corrupt at it's core. I'm guessing Republicans came up with the idea lol

 

Of course the Righties that brought us Citizens United will ignore the thread. What can they say; that we brought unlimited amounts of money both domestic and foreign into politics called it free speech and made sure that there was absolutely no disclosure of the donors? They just don't come off looking very good. I'm just waiting for them to point their crooked little fingers at the Left for bringing us all Citizens United. You know it’s coming.

 

*yawn*

 

See what I mean.

 

NO

 

A Supreme Court decision that has completely redefined politics in this country is only able to produce a "*yawn*" from one of our resident Righties. I wonder why such a game changing issue just doesn't seem to interest them? Perhaps because they really do believe that money is speech, foreign interests should play a role in our political system, unnamed billionaires should have a much greater voice than the millions of people that only have 1 vote each? Perhaps? Yeah, I think I nailed it.

 

Honestly, I didn't read a word you said or pay attention to the subject.....my *yawn* comment was just an involuntary response I have to everything you post. Read: Your far left hyperbole is BORING

 

How much money was spent by private groups on ads and other propaganda supporting Republican candidates in 2010? While not in violation of current laws (for the most part), why didn't these Republican-based groups use the more traditional method of support? Is it because the law was limiting how much they were allowed to give to a particular candidate? If so, why bother giving any money to the candidate? Why not just buy air-time, paper ads, and mass produce pamphlets about their favored candidates?