In the most predictable ruling ever, the SCOTUS on Monday overturned a ruling from the Montana Supreme Court that upheld that state’s campaign finance laws, which were pretty clearly in conflict with the Citizens United ruling. It was so predictable that the five justices in the majority — the same ones in the majority in Citizens United — didn’t even bother explaining themselves, just issued a per curiam decision noting their decision.
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….” The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment…. 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….” 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 four liberal members of the court, who had all opposed the Citizens United ruling, did offer a longer dissent arguing that that ruling should be overturned. But if they don’t do that, there was no way that the Montana court’s ruling was going to stand. And there was no way the same justices were going to reverse themselves so soon. No one can be surprised by this ruling at all.
17 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Gregory in Seattle
June 26, 2012 at 9:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And democracy gasps, and dies a little more.
I am curious, though: if corporations can make unlimited campaign contributions, doesn’t that mean individuals can, too? If corporations are people (according to legal precedent), and the law applies equally to all people (according to legal theory), then haven’t ALL campaign limits been overturned?
baal
June 26, 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The current SCOTUS is derisible.
“There can be no serious doubt”
Other than the otherwise conservative State of Montana with a noticeably conservative State SCT ruling the other way based on the facts and law of that State…I’m sure they were frivolous.
netamigo
June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m with Gregory. I have the impression that individuals have more limited rights than corporations under this ruling. Of course, corporations are nothing more than an extension of individuals. But it is mostly the rich who operate through corporations and trusts as it is expensive as well as somewhat complicated to use them. As Obama said in his state of the union, the Supreme Court overturned about a century of jurisprudence with the Citizens United ruling. We are in deep trouble if Romney gets in and appoints more of these extreme right-wing judges.
Michael Heath
June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
When the United ruling was released I recall your claiming this ruling wouldn’t have much of an impact on the dynamics of our election process. Do you remain comfortable with your prediction, wavering, or think otherwise now?
Mr Ed
June 26, 2012 at 10:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like the idea that this money is not corrupting so it is fine and dandy. So wealthy individuals and corporations with specific interest can invest money in PACs to make sure that they get the regulators they need. When I hear politicians promising to role back regulations, sorry I mean Job Killing Regulations™, I wounder have the been bought already.
It’s OK I’m voting for Mari O. Nette this year.
d cwilson
June 26, 2012 at 10:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sure. Just look at Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the billionaires who are cutting multi-million dollar checks for republicans.
Thing is, if money = speech, then the wealthy will always have more speech than the rest of us. But hey, now that the unions are all but broken and there’s nothing comparable representing the working class, I’m sure our sacred job creators will letting some of that wealthy trickle down to us. Just as soon as they get another tax cut.
Mitt Romney’s future SCOTUS nominees thank you.
Michael Heath
June 26, 2012 at 10:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
baal writes:
Montana’s law is more than 100 years old. I’m confident their modern-day conservatives would obstruct any initiative to control corporate speech if there was no United precedent created by a conservative court. I qualify my position because conservative Montanans might be chagrined by a federal court restricting their state’s power.
Jordan Genso
June 26, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47956019
Rachel Maddow did a good job covering this issue last night.
Not only are corporations given the freedom to spend whatever they want, the conservatives on the Supreme Court are trying to make sure unions can’t (around 9:15 in the video). The court is placing restricitions on the unions’ campaign spending, requiring they get approval from their members before spending.
The comparison she then mentions is that Walmart can spend however much it wants without getting shareholder approval, but if a union wanted to counter Walmart’s propoganda, they would need to get a majority of it’s members to agree to it.
Please vote for President Obama, so we have at least some chance of getting a better Supreme Court.
Michael Heath
June 26, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jordan Genso:
This explains The Daily Kos‘s recent email blast attempting to get people to sign a petition directed at Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid to introduce a bill requiring corporations get shareholder approval prior to engaging in political advocacy.
baal
June 26, 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Probably true Michael but the SCOTUS’s contention is that it’s was not possible to consider the 100 year old law valid. There is every reason to think the courts in MT did their job with all seriousness and diligence. That fact stands in contrast to the orbiter dicta dismissal of the State’s position.
gingerbaker
June 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can tell you a few people who would be surprised:
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for two.
Prior to 1886, corporate “speech” to influence politics was a felony in most states prior to 1886.
From:
” The Railroad Barons Are Back – And This Time They’ll Finish the Job: by Thom Hartmann”:
Jordan Genso
June 26, 2012 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From Michael Heath
lol. If that passed, I think coverage of shareholder meetings would become much more mainstream.
There’s obviously no chance of that actually getting past the Tea Party Republican obstructionism, and I doubt Sen. Reid will introduce it, as there may be some Democratic Senators uncomfortable supporting it*. It would be great if he did though.
*hopefully I’m wrong on that last point
emc2
June 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The way I see the argument going is that owning stock is voluntary, so if you do not approve of the actions of a company you own stock in, just sell the stock. There are many jobs out there that require membership into a Union and they don’t have the option of just quitting the union that makes political actions they do not approve of.
Jordan Genso
June 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@emc2
Why can’t your argument be used in refernce to unions?
“The way I see the argument going is that working a specific job is voluntary, so if you do not approve of the actions of a union you belong to, just find another (non-union) job.”
Personally, the best analogy to unions that I’ve come up with is home owners’ associations:
When an identifiable group of people that share some basic part of life come together and decide democratically that they are going to work as a whole for the benefit of all members. In return, certain restrictions/requirements will be placed on the members, including mandatory dues payments.
That’s why when people advocate for the misnamed “right to work” legislation, I ask them if HOAs should also lose their ability to require dues from their members.
Ed Brayton
June 26, 2012 at 8:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gregory in Seattle wrote:
You’re conflating contribution limits with the ability to spend money on third party advertising. The limits on how much an individual or corporation can donate to a candidate were upheld by the Supreme Court. What Citizens United did was allow corporations to spend money directly out of their general fund to purchase ads endorsing a candidate. They already could do that before but they had to launder the money through a third party organization first, which is what they have largely continued to do (I’ll explain this more below).
Michael Heath wrote:
I’m told by campaign finance experts that the real damage came from the Speech Now appeals court ruling, which came after Citizens United. That is what really unleashed the Super PACs. The primary holding of Citizens United, allowing corporations to spend general fund money to endorse candidates, has changed very little. They could already do that as long as they gave the money to a third-party group (PAC or 527), which is still the way they prefer to do it. That’s why you don’t see ads for or against a candidate that end with “Dow Chemical paid for this ad” or “Koch Industries paid for this ad.” What you do see is “Americans for Clean Water and Cute Puppies paid for this ad.” The reasons should be obvious.
emc2
June 26, 2012 at 8:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jordan Genso,
What I meant was that this is the type of arguement you may see from people who want to justify requiring a Union vote but not a stockholder vote for company actions.
Jordan Genso
June 27, 2012 at 11:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@emc2
Sorry. I misunderstood your post. I agree that is what some people will argue.