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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:15 AM Jun 2012

Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-montana-limits-on-corporate-campaign-spending/2012/06/25/gJQA6kpi1V_story.html

The vote was the usual 5-4

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/supreme-court-rejects-corporate-campaign-spending-limits/

"Supreme Court rejects corporate campaign spending limits
Associated Press, June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.

By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.

The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings."
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending (Original Post) ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2012 OP
People replied to my post so I guess I will leave it up, sorry about duplicate posts. LiberalLoner Jun 2012 #1
Ehy not just post it here? ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2012 #4
I hate this Supreme Court WI_DEM Jun 2012 #2
Then help by getting people to vote AGAINST the person who would select even more conservative nanabugg Jun 2012 #30
So corporations have more rights than states? malaise Jun 2012 #3
Thomas Jefferson Huey P. Long Jun 2012 #14
But but but malaise Jun 2012 #15
Sorry to inform you, but just about ALL of them are bought. Some pretend and role play better is all Huey P. Long Jun 2012 #16
Sometimes by the same people Puzzledtraveller Jun 2012 #18
Their mantra of "let the States decide" apparently is over-ridden by their friends. glinda Jun 2012 #20
+1000 nt abelenkpe Jun 2012 #23
states rights only apply to conservative policies. HiPointDem Jun 2012 #26
Yes, and they SHOULD, to some extent Jim Lane Jun 2012 #38
'the error ... was not in holding that (1st Amdt) extends to corporations'. Justice Stevens' ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2012 #39
Stevens is referring to *spending*, which is my point Jim Lane Jun 2012 #40
5-4 frazzled Jun 2012 #5
If any ever had any doubt that SCOTUS is complicit and complacent with RKP5637 Jun 2012 #6
Yep. nt Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #11
When will the horror end! Baitball Blogger Jun 2012 #7
Frankly, a lot of American oppression by other Americans increased with Reagan. n/t RKP5637 Jun 2012 #9
when we end it Doctor_J Jun 2012 #29
... xchrom Jun 2012 #8
Of course it did! People, when will you get that we are screwed and act upon it? Huey P. Long Jun 2012 #10
So much for the Court feeling remorse for Citizens United, eh? Poll_Blind Jun 2012 #12
I agree. These F*ckers are shameless tools. emulatorloo Jun 2012 #28
Guess that throws the whole "States Rights" spin out the window - gopers! jillan Jun 2012 #13
Yes rusty fender Jun 2012 #17
Well this court has all but guarenteed it's status in history as one of the worst PFunk Jun 2012 #19
Let all the mining and fracking go full speed ahead! glinda Jun 2012 #21
*facedesk* sakabatou Jun 2012 #22
Extremely Short opinion, more a, "You are wrong" then anything else. happyslug Jun 2012 #24
100 yrs of state law against proven corruption wiped out in half a page-- ProgressiveEconomist Jun 2012 #25
The notion that a conservative court would side with states rights randr Jun 2012 #27
Time to impeach the whole lot of 'em. I swear we live in the matrix it seems. Initech Jun 2012 #31
there aren't going to be any impeachments Doctor_J Jun 2012 #35
Biggest ruling of the day. Reaffirming the end of government of, by, and for the people. mmonk Jun 2012 #32
How odd that the right-wingers are opposed to states' rights. Blue_In_AK Jun 2012 #33
Five People vs 300,000,000+ people Bryn Jun 2012 #34
When corporations can receive the death penalty upi402 Jun 2012 #36
I am extremely worried about the judicial branch of government in this country Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2012 #37
 

nanabugg

(2,198 posts)
30. Then help by getting people to vote AGAINST the person who would select even more conservative
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 04:55 PM
Jun 2012

Justices and the people who would hold up confirmation of less conservative Justices.

 

Huey P. Long

(1,932 posts)
14. Thomas Jefferson
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:45 AM
Jun 2012

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
-Thomas Jefferson

malaise

(267,823 posts)
15. But but but
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:48 AM
Jun 2012

ReTHUGs have been bought by corporations and control the courts.

It will take the unity of the 99% to destroy this plutocracy.

 

Huey P. Long

(1,932 posts)
16. Sorry to inform you, but just about ALL of them are bought. Some pretend and role play better is all
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:50 AM
Jun 2012

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
18. Sometimes by the same people
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:02 AM
Jun 2012

You will find contributions paid to both candidates by the same big donor, the whitewash being that certain donors favor a certain ideaology. This may be true for some big donors, because you will see that they only contributed to one candidate and routinely back a certain party. The huge donors give to both, they are just hedging their bets, so that no matter who wins, they will have a friend in the White House.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
38. Yes, and they SHOULD, to some extent
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:18 PM
Jun 2012

Planned Parenthood is a corporation (formal name: "Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.&quot . Suppose, in a deep red state where Planned Parenthood owns the building in which it operates a clinic, the state passes a law confiscating that building so that it can be turned into a memorial tribute to Ronald Reagan. In response, Planned Parenthood runs into federal court and invokes the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law...." (emphasis added) What result?

Under current law, the result is clear. Planned Parenthood is a person. The state has deprived it of its property without due process of law. The corporation's right to keep its property is superior to the right of the state to enact a right-wing agenda.

If the Constitution were to be amended to provide that a corporation is not a person, however, then the Fourteenth Amendment wouldn't apply here. Planned Parenthood would lose. The confiscation of its building would be permitted.

Before you argue that a state's power should always be superior to a corporation's rights, you need to consider all the ramifications of that position.

My personal opinion is that the error in Citizens United was not in holding that most Constitutional protections extend to corporations -- a long-established doctrine in American law, and a correct one. The error was in failing to recognize that huge campaign expenditures are speech but are also conduct. Another long-established doctrine is that conduct can be regulated even if it expresses an opinion. The First Amendment protects a person's right to walk into a courthouse wearing a jacket that says "Fuck the Draft" but it doesn't protect a person's right to burn his draft card. Burning the draft card is conduct, which the government may prohibit, because it has (well, had, in the days of conscription) a legitimate interest in requiring young men to have and carry draft cards. That's the precedent the Supreme Court should have applied.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
39. 'the error ... was not in holding that (1st Amdt) extends to corporations'. Justice Stevens'
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 04:44 PM
Jun 2012

'the error ... was not in holding that (1st Amdt) extends to corporations'. Justice Stevens' brilliant Citizens v. United dissent strongly disagrees with you:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission :

"Third, Stevens ... discussed how the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not 'We the People' for whom our Constitution was established. Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. ... Corporate spending is the 'furthest from the core of political expression' protected by the Constitution, ... and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. ..."


 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
40. Stevens is referring to *spending*, which is my point
Tue Jun 26, 2012, 07:13 PM
Jun 2012

Suppose the spending is minimal -- Engulf & Devour, Inc. writes a press release opposing a new pollution-control bill being considered by the state legislature, and emails the press release to a few dozen media contacts. Is that an activity protected by the First Amendment?

Remember that, if a progressive state government could prohibit that conduct, then a wingnut state government could prohibit the Sierra Club from issuing a press release in favor of such a bill.

My guess is that Stevens would have held both those press releases to be protected by the First Amendment, even though they were issued by corporations. As your quotation indicates, it's when we get to the area of corporate spending that other considerations arise.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
5. 5-4
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:19 AM
Jun 2012

Folks, this is why we have to give this president a second term: the gods willing, perhaps he will have an opportunity not just to stanch the downward slide of the court (should Bader-Ginsberg or another have to retire) but to switch the 5-4 balance.

RKP5637

(67,032 posts)
6. If any ever had any doubt that SCOTUS is complicit and complacent with
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:20 AM
Jun 2012

the total corporitization of America, this should remove any doubt that people don't count in USA, Inc. If we look back at history, many know where the US is headed now.

Baitball Blogger

(46,576 posts)
7. When will the horror end!
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jun 2012

We only live one lifetime, and since 1998 it's been pretty shitty to be an American oppressed by other Americans.

 

Huey P. Long

(1,932 posts)
10. Of course it did! People, when will you get that we are screwed and act upon it?
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:31 AM
Jun 2012

They're all bought and paid for. EVERYTHING. Politicians, judges, and the stooges/functionaries who serve them.
More pain ahead till critical mass is reached. Much more pain. Prepare.

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
12. So much for the Court feeling remorse for Citizens United, eh?
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jun 2012

What a fucking.....FUCK!

This is very bad news.

PB

emulatorloo

(43,982 posts)
28. I agree. These F*ckers are shameless tools.
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:02 PM
Jun 2012

I had hope they were gonna reconsider. We are totally fucked now.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
13. Guess that throws the whole "States Rights" spin out the window - gopers!
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 10:42 AM
Jun 2012

Or is the Supreme Court going to say state's rights are okay depending on how it effects the corporations?????

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
24. Extremely Short opinion, more a, "You are wrong" then anything else.
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 01:11 PM
Jun 2012
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

Here is the ENTIRE Opinion and the Dissent:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA

No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012
PER CURIAM.

A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–
35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of
the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. It is so ordered.

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1

BREYER, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA

No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, includ­ing those made by corporations, do not give rise to corrup­tion or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. ___, ___
(2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically in­dependent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate inde­pendent expenditures . . . had become essentially inter­changeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64–65).

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Su­preme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1,
2 AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK BREYER, J., dissenting 36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant
possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote in­stead to deny the petition.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
25. 100 yrs of state law against proven corruption wiped out in half a page--
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:54 PM
Jun 2012

What irresponsible egoism by the illegitimate five.

Thanks for posting the entire decision and dissent.

randr

(12,408 posts)
27. The notion that a conservative court would side with states rights
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 02:59 PM
Jun 2012

is out the door.
Not only do these justices have the appearance of corruption, I think the congress should hold impeachment hearing and make them prove otherwise.

Blue_In_AK

(46,436 posts)
33. How odd that the right-wingers are opposed to states' rights.
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 05:40 PM
Jun 2012

I thought that has always been one of their big platforms.

Bryn

(3,621 posts)
34. Five People vs 300,000,000+ people
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 06:00 PM
Jun 2012

and 50 states and US President/Congress?

Wow! Those 5 people must be feeling very powerful. This is insane.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
37. I am extremely worried about the judicial branch of government in this country
Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:00 PM
Jun 2012

what check and balance? Completely imbalanced!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court strikes dow...