Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill219

(1,235 posts)
Fri Feb 17, 2012, 08:10 PM Feb 2012

Supreme Court blocks Montana court ruling upholding ban on independent campaign spending

By Associated Press, Updated: Friday, February 17, 6:59 PM

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday blocked a Montana court ruling upholding limits on corporate campaign spending. The state court ruling appears to be at odds with the high court’s 2010 decision striking down a federal ban on those campaign expenditures.

The justices put the Montana ruling on hold while they consider an appeal from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits. The state argues, and the Montana Supreme Court agreed, that political corruption gave rise to the century-old ban on corporate campaign spending.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/supreme-court-blocks-mont-court-ruling-upholding-ban-on-independent-campaign-spending/2012/02/17/gIQAl1kVKR_story.html

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court blocks Montana court ruling upholding ban on independent campaign spending (Original Post) Bill219 Feb 2012 OP
K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2012 #1
Here is some information about The Corrupt Practices Act, 1912, State of Montana Ptah Feb 2012 #2
State rights Gringostan Feb 2012 #3
Wont suprise me if they throw it out though i think its a BS ruling cstanleytech Feb 2012 #4

Ptah

(33,024 posts)
2. Here is some information about The Corrupt Practices Act, 1912, State of Montana
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 12:07 PM
Feb 2012
http://peoplespowerleague.info/about/about.htm

The Corrupt Practices Act, 1912, State of Montana, as it pertains to corporations:

Section 25. No corporation, and no person, trustee, or trustees owning or holding the
majority of the stock of a corporation carrying on the business of a bank, savings bank,
cooperative bank, trust, trustees, surety, indemnity, safe deposit, insurance, railroad,
street railway, telegraph, telephone, gas, electric light, heat, power, canal, aqueduct,
water, cemetery, or crematory company, or any company having the right to take or
condemn land or exercise franchise in public ways granted by the state or by any county,
city or town, shall pay or contribute in order to aid, promote or prevent the nomination or
election of any person, or in order to aid or promote the interests, success or defeat of
any political party or organization. No person shall solicit or receive such payment of contribution
from such corporation or such holder of a majority of such stock.

Section 50. In like manner as prescribed for the contesting of an election, any corporation
organized under the laws of or doing business in the state of Montana may be brought into
court on the ground of deliberate, serious and material violation of the provisions of this act.
The petition shall be filed in the district court in the county where said corporation has its
principal office, or where the violation of law is averred to have been committed. The court,
upon conviction of such corporation, may impose a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars,
or may declare a forfeiture of the charter and franchises of the corporation if organized under
the laws of this state, or if it be a foreign corporation may enjoin said corporation from further
transacting business in this state, or by both such fine and forfeiture or by both such fine and injunction.

---------------------



Gringostan

(127 posts)
3. State rights
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 01:45 PM
Feb 2012

State rights, states rights - oh, its going to hurt the corporations - corporate rights, corporate rights...

cstanleytech

(26,283 posts)
4. Wont suprise me if they throw it out though i think its a BS ruling
Sat Feb 18, 2012, 04:43 PM
Feb 2012

that they made by saying limiting the cash spent was a limit on free speech because we all know its not and what it really was about was them willing to allow wealthy to hide behind corporations in order to buy politicians and elections.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court blocks Mont...